Objective To investigate the dosimetric characteristics of different field numbers in intensi⁃ty-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Methods A total of 20 patients with cervical cancer who received in⁃tensity-modulated radiotherapy in our hospital from August to December 2020 were enrolled；and two intensi⁃ty-modulated radiotherapy plans with 5 and 7 fields were designed for each patient. The incidence angles were 45°， 115°，180°，245°，and 315°in the plan with 5 fields（Plan A）and were 0°，50°，100°，150°，210°，260°，and 310°in the plan with 7 fields（Plan B）. The equivalent uniform dose optimization method was used；and when the cost val⁃ues of the bladder；the rectum；and the small intestine were not equal to zero and the dose of the pelvis was mini⁃mized so that the 100% isodose contour covered 95% of the target volume；the target area and the organs at risk were compared in terms of dosimetry. Results Plan B had significantly better conformity index and homogeneity in⁃dex of the planning target than Plan A（P<0.001）. There were no significant differences in V10 and V50 of the organs at risk（rectum and bladder）between the two plans（P>0.05）. Compared with Plan A，Plan B had significantly bet⁃ter V20，V30，V40，and Dmean of the rectum；V20，V30，V40，and Dmean of the bladder，V30，V40，V50，and Dmean of the small intes⁃tine and V20，V30，V40，V50，and Dmean of the pelvis；while Plan A had significantly better V10 and V20 of the small intes⁃tine and V10 of the pelvis than Plan B（P<0.05）. Compared with Plan B；Plan A had a significantly lower number of monitor units and a significantly shorter beam-on time than Plan B（P<0.001）. Conclusion Both plans can meet clinical needs and have their own advantages in the high-and low-dose areas of the small intestine and the pelvis;however，considering the association with radiation injury and the results of dosimetric analysis，Plan B is more suit⁃able for clinical application.