The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage before 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".