Cerclage placement in twin pregnancies with cervical dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Existing guidelines and studies on the benefits of cerclage in twin pregnancies with a dilated cervix have low reliability and inconsistent conclusions. New randomized control trials and cohort studies focusing on twin pregnancies with cervical insufficiency were published recently. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes of cerclage placement and expectant treatment in twin pregnancies with a dilated cervix using recent data. METHODS: We screened the PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing maternal and perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies with cervical dilation, with and without cerclage placement, published until December 2020. Estimates were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effect models depending on the heterogeneity. Mean difference, 95% confidence interval, and relative risk were used to compare the outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analyses followed the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for systematic reviews of observational studies. RESULTS: Five studies, comprising 275 twin pregnancies, met the inclusion criteria; of those, 167 underwent cerclage and 108 were expectantly managed. Cerclage placement significantly prolonged the interval from the time of diagnosis to delivery and reduced the incidence of preterm delivery, perinatal death, and complications. The fetal outcomes improved significantly in cases managed with cerclage. CONCLUSION: Therefore, emergent cerclage is a potential option for managing twin pregnancies with cervical dilation of at least 1 cm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".