ArticlePloS one2026
Association between cervical conization and pregnancy outcomes: A nationwide population-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expert Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Cervical Insufficiency in China (2026 Revision).Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical conization is the standard treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. However, its effects on pregnancy outcomes remain controversial. Using data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this population-based retrospective cohort study evaluated the relationship between cervical conization and adverse pregnancy outcomes between 2006 and 2022. Altogether, 199,826 singleton primiparous women aged 19 years or older were included, of whom 18,602 had undergone conization prior to pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for obstetric complications were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Conization was associated with an elevated risk of cervical incompetence (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 3.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01-3.30), preterm labor (aOR 1.44), preterm premature rupture of membranes (aOR 1.67), placenta previa, gestational diabetes, and intrauterine growth restriction. The subgroup analysis revealed that women who underwent both conization and cerclage had substantially higher risks of preterm labor and preterm premature rupture of membranes than did those who did not receive cerclage. The results point to a heightened obstetric risk following cervical conization, emphasizing the need for tailored prenatal care and continued prospective investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.