比较预防性阴道黄体酮和宫颈环扎术预防早产:系统回顾

BioSight Pub Date : 2024-01-15 DOI:10.46568/bios.v5i1.171
Saman Ejaz, Maryam Raana, Muhammad Essa, Sadaf Zahra, Snovia Ishaq, Uswa Shoaib, Muhammad Irshad, Zain Ul Abideen
{"title":"比较预防性阴道黄体酮和宫颈环扎术预防早产:系统回顾","authors":"Saman Ejaz, Maryam Raana, Muhammad Essa, Sadaf Zahra, Snovia Ishaq, Uswa Shoaib, Muhammad Irshad, Zain Ul Abideen","doi":"10.46568/bios.v5i1.171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Preterm birth complicates at-risk singleton pregnancies, and this is associated with a poor prognosis for pregnant mothers. When comparing cervical cerclage to vaginal progesterone, the rationale is clear, but its effectiveness remains a mystery.It is the goal of this systematic review to shed further light on this well-known conundrum. To find research on preventive vaginal progesterone usage vs cervical cerclage, PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. There were three randomized control trials, three systematic reviews and meta-analyses, two cohort studies, and two conventional reviews. It was determined that both strategies for managing preterm delivery were equally effective in terms of preterm birth prevention when applied to pregnant women. We found that vaginal progesterone had less side effects than cervical cerclage, but it has no influence on a woman's ability to function and does not improve her life expectancy. The systematic reviews and randomized controlled studies unequivocally confirmed these findings. Cervical cerclage was shown to be more risky than preventive vaginal progesterone in a comprehensive study. However, prophylactic application of cervical cerclage still remains a superior treatment modality if serial transvaginal ultrasound scans are pointing towards cervical shortening. Therefore, more research is required to understand this relationship to identify populations at risk.","PeriodicalId":516564,"journal":{"name":"BioSight","volume":"21 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Prophylactic Vaginal Progesterone & Cervical Cerclage In Preventing Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Saman Ejaz, Maryam Raana, Muhammad Essa, Sadaf Zahra, Snovia Ishaq, Uswa Shoaib, Muhammad Irshad, Zain Ul Abideen\",\"doi\":\"10.46568/bios.v5i1.171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Preterm birth complicates at-risk singleton pregnancies, and this is associated with a poor prognosis for pregnant mothers. When comparing cervical cerclage to vaginal progesterone, the rationale is clear, but its effectiveness remains a mystery.It is the goal of this systematic review to shed further light on this well-known conundrum. To find research on preventive vaginal progesterone usage vs cervical cerclage, PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. There were three randomized control trials, three systematic reviews and meta-analyses, two cohort studies, and two conventional reviews. It was determined that both strategies for managing preterm delivery were equally effective in terms of preterm birth prevention when applied to pregnant women. We found that vaginal progesterone had less side effects than cervical cerclage, but it has no influence on a woman's ability to function and does not improve her life expectancy. The systematic reviews and randomized controlled studies unequivocally confirmed these findings. Cervical cerclage was shown to be more risky than preventive vaginal progesterone in a comprehensive study. However, prophylactic application of cervical cerclage still remains a superior treatment modality if serial transvaginal ultrasound scans are pointing towards cervical shortening. Therefore, more research is required to understand this relationship to identify populations at risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioSight\",\"volume\":\"21 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioSight\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46568/bios.v5i1.171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioSight","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46568/bios.v5i1.171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

早产是高危单胎妊娠的并发症,与孕妇的不良预后有关。将宫颈环扎术与阴道黄体酮进行比较,其原理是明确的,但其有效性仍是一个谜。本系统综述的目的是进一步揭示这一众所周知的难题。为了查找有关预防性使用阴道黄体酮与宫颈环扎术的研究,我们检索了 PubMed、PubMed Central、Medline、Science Direct 和 Google Scholar。其中包括三项随机对照试验、三项系统综述和荟萃分析、两项队列研究和两项常规综述。结果表明,这两种早产管理策略在预防孕妇早产方面同样有效。我们发现,与宫颈环扎术相比,阴道黄体酮的副作用较小,但对妇女的机能没有影响,也不会延长其预期寿命。系统综述和随机对照研究明确证实了这些发现。一项综合研究显示,宫颈环扎术比预防性阴道黄体酮的风险更大。然而,如果连续经阴道超声扫描显示宫颈缩短,预防性应用宫颈环扎术仍然是一种更优越的治疗方式。因此,需要进行更多的研究来了解这种关系,以确定高危人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing Prophylactic Vaginal Progesterone & Cervical Cerclage In Preventing Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review
Preterm birth complicates at-risk singleton pregnancies, and this is associated with a poor prognosis for pregnant mothers. When comparing cervical cerclage to vaginal progesterone, the rationale is clear, but its effectiveness remains a mystery.It is the goal of this systematic review to shed further light on this well-known conundrum. To find research on preventive vaginal progesterone usage vs cervical cerclage, PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched. There were three randomized control trials, three systematic reviews and meta-analyses, two cohort studies, and two conventional reviews. It was determined that both strategies for managing preterm delivery were equally effective in terms of preterm birth prevention when applied to pregnant women. We found that vaginal progesterone had less side effects than cervical cerclage, but it has no influence on a woman's ability to function and does not improve her life expectancy. The systematic reviews and randomized controlled studies unequivocally confirmed these findings. Cervical cerclage was shown to be more risky than preventive vaginal progesterone in a comprehensive study. However, prophylactic application of cervical cerclage still remains a superior treatment modality if serial transvaginal ultrasound scans are pointing towards cervical shortening. Therefore, more research is required to understand this relationship to identify populations at risk.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Use of Cystoinflation to Prevent Urinary Tract Injuries in Patients with Placenta Previa Analysis of Mucosal- Associated Invariant T Cell Levels And Their Correlation With Tumor Immune Status In Patients With Brain Tumors Comparing Prophylactic Vaginal Progesterone & Cervical Cerclage In Preventing Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review Improving Pea Growth and Nutrient Efficiency in Calcareous Soils through the Synergy of Organic Amendments and Chemical Fertilizers Efficacy of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy In Treating Lower Pole Stones of 1-2 cms
×
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:481959085
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