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

IF 1.5 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
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":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","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":"","PubModel":"","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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
58 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信