The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reproductive Performance of Women with Uterine Anomalies: An Evaluation of 182 Cases
Abstract
Abstract. A total of 182 women with uterine anomalies were observed over a period of 18 years. In all, 126 women had 265 pregnancies, fetal survival rate was 66%, perinatal mortality 8% and premature labors occurred in 23%. When the uterine anomalies were grouped according to degree of failure of normal uterine development, the complete septate uteri had the best fetal survival rate (86%), complete bicornuate uteri (50%) and unicornuate (40%) poorest. Cervical cerclage was applied most in the partial bicornuate uteri (17%), where fetal survival in operated cases was: before operation, 53% and after, 100%. The frequency of breech presentation was 40–50% in all groups except complete septate uteri (25%) and complete bicornuate (0%). The highest cesarean section rate (82%) was in deliveries of patients with uterus didelphys. The frequency of cesarean section among total deliveries was 53%. Metroplasty was carried out on 19 patients. The obstetric outcome improved from 10% successful pregnancies before surgery to 88% postoperatively.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Müllerian Anomalies: A Proposed Classification (An Analysis of 144 Cases)
Buttram, V. C., & Gibbons, W. E. (1979) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)44114-2 · Cited by 591
UTERINE ANOMALIES. FREQUENCY OF DIAGNOSIS AND ASSOCIATED OBSTETRIC COMPLICATIONS
GREEN, L. K., & HARRIS, R. E. (1976) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/00006254-197609000-00004 · Cited by 162
Jarcho, J. (1946) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/0002-9610(46)90190-0 · Cited by 113
Mackay, E. V., & Ebringer, A. (1963) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1963.tb17892.x · Cited by 89
Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: hysterosalpingographic study
Zanetti, E., Ferrari, L. R., & Rossi, G. (1978) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/0007-1285-51-603-161 · Cited by 56
Laparoscopy for resolving Müllerian abnormalities.
Motashaw, N., Dastur, A. E., Vaidya, R. A., et al. (1978) · PubMed · Cited by 5
Cited by
Chan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Zamora, J., Thornton, J. G., Raine-Fenning, N., & Coomarasamy, A. (2011) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr028 · Cited by 758
Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Imaging and Clinical Issues
Troiano, R. N., & McCarthy, S. M. (2004) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2331020777 · Cited by 622
Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review
Chan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Tan, A., Thornton, J. G., Coomarasamy, A., & Raine‐Fenning, N. J. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10056 · Cited by 564
Stray-Pedersen, B., & Stray-Pedersen, S. (1984) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(84)80164-7 · Cited by 483
Metadata
- Authors
- Heinonen, P. K., Saarikoski, S., & Pystynen, P.
- Venue
- Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1982-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 157-162
- ISSN
- 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0412
- OpenAlex
- W2080965573
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.49
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Reproductive Performance of Women with Uterine Anomalies: An Evaluation of 182 Cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/00016348209156548
- The paper
- Heinonen, P. K., Saarikoski, S., & Pystynen, P. (1982). Reproductive Performance of Women with Uterine Anomalies: An Evaluation of 182 Cases. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016348209156548
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.
