Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Premature Rupture of Membranes

·2007·Current Clinical Practice

Abstract

Since 1970 there have been many changes in our knowledge of premature rupture of the membranes (PROM). Studies of its causes have focused on clinical variables, physical properties of the membranes, and subclinical infection, while new diagnostic techniques have included biochemical and histochemical tests, as well as intrauterine dye injection. Within the last decade, new approaches in management have employed corticosteroids, tocolytics, and amniocentesis. Because of limitations of current studies, however, it is difficult to compare one study to another. Consequently, management of PROM remains a major dilemma. This review provides a summary and commentary on recent works.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-1-59745-142-0_8

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Venue
Current Clinical Practice
Publisher
Humana Press
Published
2007-11-08
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
63-68
OpenAlex
W2416545896
Cited by
258
References
3
FWCI
42.15
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Premature Rupture of Membranes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-1-59745-142-0_8
The paper
Premature Rupture of Membranes. (2007). Current Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-142-0_8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.