Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31996173›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

The use of specialised preterm birth clinics for women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review.

Lisa Dawes, Katie Groom, Vanessa Jordan, Jason Waugh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Policy and advocacy considerations for the prevention and care of preterm birth.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Preterm Birth: Screening and Prediction.International journal of women's health · 2023
    Review
  8. Causes of perinatal deaths in Australia: Slow progress in the preterm period.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa DawesLiggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. l.dawes@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3814-1370
Katie GroomLiggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Vanessa JordanDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jason WaughNational Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

Auckland Medical Research Foundation Ruth Spencer Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecialised preterm birth clinics care for women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth. This systematic review assesses current practice within preterm birth clinics globally.

methodsA comprehensive search strategy was used to identify all studies on preterm birth clinics on the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases. There were no restrictions to study design. Studies were limited to the English language and publications from 1998 onwards. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, performed data extraction and reviewed methodological quality. Primary outcomes were referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics. Secondary outcomes were the timing of planned first and last appointments and frequency of review.

resultsThirty-two records fulfilled eligibility criteria and 20 studies were included in the main analysis following grouping of records describing the same study or clinic. Studies were of mixed study design and methodological quality. A total of 39 clinics were described; outcome data was not available for all clinics. Referral criteria included previous spontaneous preterm birth (38/38, 100%), previous mid-trimester loss (34/38, 89%) and previous cervical surgery (33/38, 87%). All clinics offered transvaginal cervical length scans. Additional investigations varied, including urogenital swabs (16/28, 57%) and fetal fibronectin (8/28, 29%). The primary treatment of choice for a sonographic short cervix was cervical cerclage in 10/33 (30%) clinics and vaginal progesterone in 6/33 (18%), with 10/33 (30%) using multiple first-line options and 6/33 (18%) using a combination of treatments. The majority of clinics planned timing of first review for 12-16 weeks (30/35, 86%) and the frequency of review was usually determined by clinical findings (18/24, 75%). There was a wide variation in gestational age at clinic discharge between 24 and 37 weeks.

conclusionsThere is variation in the referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics and in the timing and frequency of review. Consistency in practice may improve with the introduction of consensus guidelines and national preterm birth prevention programmes.

trial registrationSystematic review registration number: CRD42019131470.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, High-RiskAdultCervical Length MeasurementClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornOutcome Assessment, Health CareOutpatient Clinics, HospitalPerinatal CarePregnancyPregnancy OutcomePremature BirthSecondary PreventionPreterm birth prevention clinicSpecialised preterm birth clinicSpontaneous preterm birth

Identifiers

PMID31996173
PMCPMC6990596
OpenAlexW3010813307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.