Observational studyPloS one2026
Stabilization of cervical stiffness associated with cervical pessary placement in women at risk for preterm birth.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeShortening of the cervix is a predictor of spontaneous preterm birth (PTB). It is assumed that a cervical pessary reduces mechanical stress on the internal os and consequently decreases the risk of premature delivery. The primary aim of this study was to compare longitudinal changes in cervical stiffness between women with cervical shortening (a cervical length ≤ 25 mm according to the ISUOG guidelines) treated with a cervical pessary and healthy controls.
methodsA total of 89 pregnant participants were analysed in this prospective observational study. Among them, 30 received a cervical pessary because of cervical shortening below 25 mm. The remaining 59 women served as the control group. Cervical stiffness was measured with the Pregnolia® system at two time points: between 18 + 0 and 24 + 6 weeks of gestation (first appointment) and again 4 weeks later. In the pessary cohort, the baseline measurement was obtained prior to pessary insertion.
resultsAt four weeks, women in the control group demonstrated a decrease in the median Cervical Stiffness Index (CSI) value: 60.8 vs. 46.7 mbar (nominal p = 0.03) although this difference did not remain statistically significant after FDR adjustment (p = 0.09). In contrast, median CSI values remained stable in the pessary group (71.2 vs. 73.7 mbar; p = 0.88). Cervical length and uterocervical angle (UCA) did not change within the observation period in either group. Moreover, the median birth weight in the normal cohort and in the Pessary cohort was 3380 g (3175-3570) and 3185 g (3011-3450), respectively (p = 0.062).
conclusionIn women with the cervical shortening treated with the pessary cervical stiffness remained stable, whereas a decline was observed in the control group. These findings support a potential association between cervical pessary treatment and stabilisation of cervical stiffness. Further studies, including untreated women with cervical shortening are needed to confirm these findings and to better understand the underlying biomechanical mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.