Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36441090›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2023

Perioperative complications of a transvaginal cervical cerclage in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Charlotte E van Dijk, Sofie H Breuking, Sophie Jansen, Jacqueline C E J M Limpens, Brenda M Kazemier, Eva Pajkrt

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte E van DijkAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.e.vandijk@amsterdamumc.nl.
Sofie H BreukingAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Sophie JansenAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jacqueline C E J M LimpensDepartment of Research Support-Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Brenda M KazemierAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Eva PajkrtAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven that many studies report on a limited spectrum of adverse events of transvaginal cervical cerclage for preventing preterm birth, but are not powered to draw conclusions about its safety, the objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review with pooled risk analyses of perioperative complications and compare characteristics on the basis of indication for cerclage in singleton pregnancies. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the prospective trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from inception to April 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and both retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies reporting about complications in history-indicated cerclage, ultrasound-indicated cerclage, or physical examination-indicated cerclage were eligible. Studies were included if they contained original data on the occurrence of adverse events during surgery or within 24 hours after surgery.

methodsThe Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort and case-control studies were used for the critical appraisal. The pooled risk assessment was conducted using meta and metafor packages in R (studio), version 4.0.3.

resultsThe search yielded 2328 potential studies; 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 prospective, and 38 retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. Of the 4511 women with singleton gestations, 1561 (34.6%) underwent history-indicated cerclage, 1348 (29.9%) underwent ultrasound-indicated cerclage, and 1549 (33.3%) underwent physical examination-indicated cerclage. Most perioperative complications occurred in physical examination-indicated cerclage, especially hemorrhage (2.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-7.6) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (2.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-4.5). The fewest complications occurred in history-indicated cerclage, varying from 0.0% of preterm premature rupture of membranes (95% confidence interval, 0.0-1.7) to 0.9% of hemorrhage (95% confidence interval, 0.0-7.9). In ultrasound-indicated cerclage, the most common complication was hemorrhage (1.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-4.1), followed by lacerations (0.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-3.1) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (0.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.8).

conclusionThe highest risk of perioperative complications was observed in physical examination-indicated cerclage in comparison with ultrasound- and history-indicated cerclage. However, the occurrence of complications is poorly documented in the published literature, as is the timing of the complications (ie, perioperative or later in pregnancy). There is an urgent need for uniform complication reporting policy in both cohort studies and randomized controlled trials on cerclage.

Indexed as

Cerclage, CervicalPremature BirthCervix UteriFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesbladder injuriescervical traumachorioamnionitishemorrhagehistory-indicated cerclageinfectionlacerationslesionsmaternal deathphysical examination-indicated cerclagepreterm premature rupture of membranespyrexiasepsisultrasound-indicated cerclage

Identifiers

PMID36441090
OpenAlexW4307482908

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.