The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage before 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 1.7 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1016/j.eurox.2025.100372
Bouchra Koullali , Charlotte E. van Dijk , Charlotte E. Kleinrouweler , Jacqueline C.E.J.M.P. Limpens , Ben W. Mol , Martijn A. Oudijk , Eva Pajkrt
{"title":"The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage before 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Bouchra Koullali ,&nbsp;Charlotte E. van Dijk ,&nbsp;Charlotte E. Kleinrouweler ,&nbsp;Jacqueline C.E.J.M.P. Limpens ,&nbsp;Ben W. Mol ,&nbsp;Martijn A. Oudijk ,&nbsp;Eva Pajkrt","doi":"10.1016/j.eurox.2025.100372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage (EIC) remains uncertain due to limited evidence from reviews covering pregnancies beyond this timeframe. With the 24-week mark serving as an international threshold for neonatal care initiation, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of an EIC before 24 weeks of gestation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies comparing EIC with expectant management in singleton pregnancies with cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm between 14 and 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth (PTB) &lt; 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Quality assessment was preformed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Analyses were conducted using R(studio) version 3.6.1. and outcomes stated as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Prospero: #CRD42019137400. The search yielded 787 potential studies. Four studies non-randomized (retrospective) could be included. Quality assessment showed overall good quality. The main weaknesses were retrospective designs, small sample sizes and the poor comparability of the intervention and control groups. The study population resulted in 215 women, among whom 163 (76 %) underwent cerclage placement and 52 (24 %) were expectantly managed. EIC compared with expectant management was associated with significant lower rates of PTB before 37 weeks (71.2 % vs 94.2 %; OR 0.11; 95 % CI 0.03–0.35), 34 weeks (49.1 % vs 86.5 %; OR 0.10; 95 % CI 0.03–0.31), 32 weeks (43.0 % vs 80.0 %; OR 0.13; 95 % CI 0.04–0.43), 28 weeks (43.0 % vs 75.0 %; OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.07–0.51) and 24 weeks (23.3 % vs 50 %; OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.13–0.65) of gestation, significant prolongation of the pregnancy (mean difference 39.14 days; 95 %CI 30.58–47.71; p-value &lt;0.0001) and a greater gestational age at delivery (mean difference 4.91 weeks; 95 % CI 2.32–7.49; p-value 0.0002) compared to expectant management. The current literature suggests that EIC before 24 weeks of gestation is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes compared to expectant management. The results are limited by the lack of randomised trials and studied neonatal outcomes plus the potential for bias in the included studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37085,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161325000080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage (EIC) remains uncertain due to limited evidence from reviews covering pregnancies beyond this timeframe. With the 24-week mark serving as an international threshold for neonatal care initiation, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of an EIC before 24 weeks of gestation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies comparing EIC with expectant management in singleton pregnancies with cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm between 14 and 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth (PTB) < 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Quality assessment was preformed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Analyses were conducted using R(studio) version 3.6.1. and outcomes stated as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Prospero: #CRD42019137400. The search yielded 787 potential studies. Four studies non-randomized (retrospective) could be included. Quality assessment showed overall good quality. The main weaknesses were retrospective designs, small sample sizes and the poor comparability of the intervention and control groups. The study population resulted in 215 women, among whom 163 (76 %) underwent cerclage placement and 52 (24 %) were expectantly managed. EIC compared with expectant management was associated with significant lower rates of PTB before 37 weeks (71.2 % vs 94.2 %; OR 0.11; 95 % CI 0.03–0.35), 34 weeks (49.1 % vs 86.5 %; OR 0.10; 95 % CI 0.03–0.31), 32 weeks (43.0 % vs 80.0 %; OR 0.13; 95 % CI 0.04–0.43), 28 weeks (43.0 % vs 75.0 %; OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.07–0.51) and 24 weeks (23.3 % vs 50 %; OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.13–0.65) of gestation, significant prolongation of the pregnancy (mean difference 39.14 days; 95 %CI 30.58–47.71; p-value <0.0001) and a greater gestational age at delivery (mean difference 4.91 weeks; 95 % CI 2.32–7.49; p-value 0.0002) compared to expectant management. The current literature suggests that EIC before 24 weeks of gestation is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes compared to expectant management. The results are limited by the lack of randomised trials and studied neonatal outcomes plus the potential for bias in the included studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妊娠24周前检查表明的环切术对预防早产的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
检查表明的环切(EIC)的影响仍然不确定,因为对超过这个时间框架的妊娠的评估证据有限。随着24周标志作为新生儿护理开始的国际门槛,本系统综述的目的是评估关于妊娠24周前EIC有效性的现有文献。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science、CENTRAL、clinicaltrials.gov和WHO-ICTRP的随机对照试验、队列和病例对照研究,比较了妊娠14 - 24周宫颈扩张≤ 5 cm的单胎妊娠和妊娠37周妊娠中EIC与准用药预防早产(PTB)的效果。次要结局包括产科和新生儿结局。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行质量评价。使用R(studio) 3.6.1版本进行分析。结果以95% %置信区间(CI)的比值比(OR)表示。普洛斯彼罗:# CRD42019137400。这项搜索产生了787项潜在研究。可纳入4项非随机(回顾性)研究。质量评价显示质量总体良好。主要缺点是回顾性设计,样本量小,干预组和对照组的可比性差。研究人群中有215名妇女,其中163名(76% %)接受了环扎术,52名(24% %)接受了预期治疗。与预期治疗相比,EIC与37周前PTB的发生率显著降低相关(71.2 % vs 94.2 %;或0.11;95 % CI 0.03-0.35), 34周(49.1 % vs 86.5 %;或0.10;95 % CI 0.03-0.31), 32周(43.0 % vs 80.0 %;或0.13;95 % CI 0.04-0.43), 28周(43.0% % vs 75.0% %;或0.19;95 % CI 0.07-0.51)和24周(23.3 % vs 50 %;或0.29;95 % CI 0.13-0.65),妊娠期明显延长(平均差39.14天;95年 %可信区间30.58 - -47.71;p值<;0.0001)和分娩时较大的胎龄(平均差4.91周;95 % ci 2.32-7.49;p值0.0002)。目前的文献表明,与妊娠管理相比,妊娠24周前的EIC与妊娠结局的改善有关。由于缺乏随机试验和新生儿结局研究,加上纳入的研究可能存在偏倚,结果受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
58 days
期刊最新文献
Longitudinal study of central obesity and glucose–lipid metabolism in predicting tumor remission among fertility-sparing endometrial cancer patients Balancing anatomical limits and dynamic adaptation: Understanding the determinants of successful vaginal breech delivery Retraction notice to “Sexual dysfunction in migraine-affected women: A prospective cross-sectional controlled study” [Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. X 23 (2024) 100319] Prevalence of an endogenous LH rise following final GnRH antagonist dose in the IVF antagonist protocol Lessons from a one-stop multidisciplinary perineal clinic for obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI): An early Asian experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1