MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407357797 · doi:10.1016/j.eurox.2025.100372

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

2025· review· en· W4407357797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bouchra Koullali, Charlotte E. van Dijk, C. Emily Kleinrouweler, Jacqueline Limpens, Ben W. Mol, Martijn A. Oudijk, Eva Pajkrt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology X · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMerck KGaANational Health and Medical Research CouncilMerck
KeywordsGestationMeta-analysisMedicineObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology XSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207