MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386858195 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001182

Cervical Cerclage: A Comprehensive Review of Major Guidelines

2023· review· en· W4386858195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonia Giouleka, Eirini Boureka, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Antonios Siargkas, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsMiscarriageCervical insufficiencyCervical cerclageObstetrics and gynaecologyGynecologyPregnancyGestationCervix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Cervical cerclage (CC) represents one of the few effective measures currently available for the prevention of preterm delivery caused by cervical insufficiency, thus contributing in the reduction of neonatal morbidity and mortality rates. Objective: The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published major guidelines on the indications, contraindications, techniques, and timing of placing and removal of CC. Evidence Acquisition: A descriptive review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) on CC was carried out. Results: There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the recommended techniques, the indications for rescue CC, the contraindications, as well as the optimal timing of CC placement and removal. All medical societies also agree that ultrasound-indicated CC is justified in women with history of prior spontaneous PTD or mid-trimester miscarriage and a short cervical length detected on ultrasound. In addition, after CC, serial sonographic measurement of the cervical length, bed rest, and routine use of antibiotics, tocolysis, and progesterone are unanimously discouraged. In case of established preterm labor, CC should be removed, according to ACOG, RCOG, and SOGC. Furthermore, RCOG and SOGC agree on the prerequisites that should be met before attempting CC. These 2 guidelines along with FIGO recommend history-indicated CC for women with 3 or more previous preterm deliveries and/or second trimester pregnancy miscarriages, whereas the ACOG suggests the use of CC in singleton pregnancies with 1 or more previous second trimester miscarriages related to painless cervical dilation or prior CC due to painless cervical dilation in the second trimester. The role of amniocentesis in ruling out intra-amniotic infection before rescue CC remains a matter of debate. Conclusions: Cervical cerclage is an obstetric intervention used to prevent miscarriage and preterm delivery in women considered as high-risk for these common pregnancy complications. The development of universal international practice protocols for the placement of CC seems of paramount importance and will hopefully improve the outcomes of such pregnancies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207