MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410676720 · doi:10.1007/s00404-025-08056-w

Management of pregnant women with endocervical and decidual polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410676720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Min Wang, Mingxia Ye, Nan Shen, Wanchun Pan, Heping Zhang, Xin Wang, Tingyu Sun, Ling Zhou, Yuanguang Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyObstetricsMeta-analysisPregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The impact of polypectomy of endocervical and decidual polyps during pregnancy on the risk of spontaneous late miscarriage and preterm delivery has not been determined. The existing systematic reviews included only three studies that could not yield definite conclusions. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Med and CNKI databases were searched from inception until July 1, 2024. Studies of women who were diagnosed with endocervical and decidual polyps during pregnancy and who received treatment or observation were included. Studies without a control group were excluded. Randomized controlled trials and case‒control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies were included in this review. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for inclusion and extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated with the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. Statistical analysis was performed via Review Manager software version 5.4, employing fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analyses as appropriate, to estimate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of the 1696 initially identified articles, 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. These 12 studies, comprising data from 8337 women, underwent quantitative analysis. The results of the meta-analyses revealed a significantly greater risk of miscarriage (OR, 11.19; CI 4.63-27.04) and preterm delivery (OR, 9.41; CI 3.40-26.04) in women with endocervical polyps than in those without. Endocervical polypectomy had no significant influence on subsequent miscarriage (OR, 1.28; CI 0.69-2.36) or preterm delivery (OR, 1.12; CI 0.36-3.49). Conversely, the removal of decidual polyps was associated with a significantly greater risk of miscarriage (OR, 2.77; CI 1.45-5.27) and preterm birth (OR, 3.42; CI 1.09-10.72) than endocervical polypectomy was. Furthermore, polypectomy performed before the 12th gestational week was associated with an increased risk of miscarriage (OR, 2.87; CI 1.08-7.59), although not preterm delivery (OR, 1.18; CI 0.61-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women, polypectomy for endocervical or decidual polyps does not have a significant negative effect on miscarriage or preterm delivery, and it is better to perform the operation after the 12th gestational week. However, the presence of decidual polyps may pose a heightened risk for adverse obstetric outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.029
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207