Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28586127›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy.

Zarko Alfirevic, Tamara Stampalija, Nancy Medley

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
17.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

110 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 373 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical practice guideline "preconception care".Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zarko AlfirevicDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Tamara Stampalija
Nancy Medley
IRCCS Materno Infantile Burlo Garofolo · ITLiverpool Women's Hospital · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cerclage is a well-known surgical procedure carried out during pregnancy. It involves positioning of a suture (stitch) around the neck of the womb (cervix), aiming to give mechanical support to the cervix and thereby reduce risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure remains controversial. This is an update of a review last published in 2012.

objectivesTo assess whether the use of cervical stitch in singleton pregnancy at high risk of pregnancy loss based on woman's history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical exam improves subsequent obstetric care and fetal outcome. SEARCH

methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials of cervical suturing in singleton pregnancies. Cervical stitch was carried out when the pregnancy was considered to be of sufficiently high risk due to a woman's history, a finding of short cervix on ultrasound or other indication determined by physical exam. We included any study that compared cerclage with either no treatment or any alternative intervention. We planned to include cluster-randomised studies but not cross-over trials. We excluded quasi-randomised studies. We included studies reported in abstract form only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsThis updated review includes a total of 15 trials (3490 women); three trials were added for this update (152 women). Cerclage versus no cerclageOverall, cerclage probably leads to a reduced risk of perinatal death when compared with no cerclage, although the confidence interval (CI) crosses the line of no effect (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 10 studies, 2927 women; moderate quality evidence). Considering stillbirths and neonatal deaths separately reduced the numbers of events and sample size. Although the relative effect of cerclage is similar, estimates were less reliable with fewer data and assessed as of low quality (stillbirths RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75; 5 studies, 1803 women; low quality evidence; neonatal deaths before discharge RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; 6 studies, 1714 women; low quality evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity was similar with and without cerclage (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; 6 studies, 883 women; low-quality evidence). Pregnant women with and without cerclage were equally likely to have a baby discharged home healthy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; 4 studies, 657 women; moderate quality evidence).Pregnant women with cerclage were less likely to have preterm births compared to controls before 37, 34 (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89; 9 studies, 2415 women; high quality evidence) and 28 completed weeks of gestation.Five subgroups based on clinical indication provided data for analysis (history-indicated; short cervix based on one-off ultrasound in high risk women; short cervix found by serial scans in high risk women; physical exam-indicated; and short cervix found on scan in low risk or mixed populations). There were too few trials in these clinical subgroups to make meaningful conclusions and no evidence of differential effects. Cerclage versus progestogens Two trials (129 women) compared cerclage to prevention with vaginal progesterone in high risk women with short cervix on ultrasound; these trials were too small to detect reliable, clinically important differences for any review outcome. One included trial compared cerclage with intramuscular 17α‐hydroxiprogestrone caproate (17 OHPC) which lacked power to detect group differences. History indicated cerclage versus ultrasound indicated cerclage Evidence from two trials (344 women) was too limited to establish differences for clinically important outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCervical cerclage reduces the risk of preterm birth in women at high-risk of preterm birth and probably reduces risk of perinatal deaths. There was no evidence of any differential effect of cerclage based on previous obstetric history or short cervix indications, but data were limited for all clinical groups. The question of whether cerclage is more or less effective than other preventative treatments, particularly vaginal progesterone, remains unanswered.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravaginalCerclage, CervicalCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInjections, IntramuscularPerinatal DeathPregnancyPremature BirthProgesteroneRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStillbirthSuture TechniquesProgesterone

Identifiers

PMID28586127
PMCPMC6481522
OpenAlexW2141940030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.