ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Screening vs. no screening for preterm delivery in low-risk singleton pregnancies: comparison by propensity score analysis.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can universal cervical length screening with vaginal progesterone for a short cervix reduce preterm birth? A systematic review and meta-analyses.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- The value of cervical length changes for the prediction of preterm birth with normal mid-trimester cervical length; a prospective longitudinal study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cervical length evolution in pregnancy and prediction of preterm delivery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Uterocervical angle and cervical length measurements for spontaneous preterm birth prediction in low-risk singleton pregnant women: a prospective cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of a policy of screening for spontaneous preterm delivery (SPD) by transvaginal cervical length (CL) measurement versus a no screening policy in the prevention of severe prematurity.
methodsRetrospective study on low-risk singleton pregnancies examined at 20-24 weeks. Two cohorts, one with SPD screening and the other without screening, were matched using propensity analysis to create the study groups. Women with short CL were treated with vaginal progesterone and/or cervical cerclage/pessary. The outcomes examined were SPD < 32 weeks (SPD 32) and SPD between 20 and 32 weeks (SPD 20-32).
resultsScreening for SPD was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of SPD at less than 32 weeks (0.3 vs. 0.8%, p = 0.001 in the screened and no screened pregnancies, respectively) and in the rate of SPD 20-32 (0.3 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.005 in the screened and no screened pregnancies, respectively). After adjusting for maternal age, parity, body mass index, smoking and mode of conception, the screening group had significantly lower hazard for SPD 20-32 (HR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.75, p = 0.006) and SPD32 (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, p = 0.013).
conclusionScreening for SPD by transvaginal CL measurement in mid-pregnancy may reduce the incidence of severe prematurity in low-risk singleton pregnancies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.