Evidence Hub

Characterization of Cervical Remodeling During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period: A Case Series Analysis

Michelle Villegas-Downs, Mehrdad Mohammadi, A. Han, William D. O'Brien, J. Schlaeger, B. McFarlin

The American journal of case reports, 2025

8 participants

Abstract

Case series Patients: Female, 20-year-old • Female, 29-year-old • Female, 36-year-old • Female, 34-year-old • Female, 35-year-old • Female, 30-year-old • Female, 30-year-old • Female, 39-year-old Final Diagnosis: N/A Symptoms: None Clinical Procedure: — Specialty: Obstetrics and Gynecology Objective: Unknown etiology Background The uterine cervix is crucial for maintaining pregnancy to term, and complete cervical repair is essential to prevent future obstetric complications. Despite the importance of the cervical remodeling process, its characterization from pregnancy to the postpartum period in humans has been challenging. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) noninvasively estimates tissue properties, potentially providing insights into the cervical remodeling process beyond standard clinical assessment. By characterizing biological changes throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period, QUS can potentially improve our understanding of normal cervical remodeling and early deviations that can be associated with adverse outcomes. Case Reports This retrospective case series was aimed to characterize the cervical remodeling process from pregnancy to 1 year postpartum. Eight women underwent transvaginal ultrasound scans at 2 time points in mid-pregnancy (approximately 20 and 24 weeks of gestation) and 5 time points postpartum (approximately 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Five QUS biomarkers were analyzed: attenuation coefficient, backscatter coefficient, shear wave speed, slope,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 8 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free