ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2024
PROMPT: Prospective Meta-analysis for Pessary Trials Study Protocol.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervix: A randomised controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2025Trial
- Pessary for Prevention of Preterm Birth and Perinatal Mortality in Pregnancies with a Short Cervix: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 16 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePreterm birth, defined as birth before 37 weeks of gestation, is a leading cause of perinatal and infant mortality throughout the world. Preterm birth is also associated with long-term neurological disabilities and other significant health issues in children. A short cervix in the second trimester has been noted to be one of the strongest predictors of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth in both singleton and multiple pregnancies. Some studies have shown that cervical support in the form of an Arabin pessary lowers the risk of preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and short cervical length; however, other studies have conflicting results. Our objective was to form an international collaborative of planned or ongoing randomized trials of pessary in singleton and twin gestations with a short cervix. STUDY
designIn November 2014, an international group of investigators, who had initiated or were planning randomized trials of pessary for pregnant people with a short cervix and singleton or twin gestation to prevent preterm birth, formed a collaboration to plan a prospective individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials (PROspective Meta-analysis of Pessary Trials [PROMPT]). The PROMPT investigators agreed on meta-analysis IPD hypotheses for singletons and twins, eligibility criteria, and a set of core baseline and outcome measures. The primary outcome is a composite of fetal death or preterm delivery before 32 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes include maternal and neonatal morbidities. The PROMPT protocol may be viewed as a written agreement among the study investigators who make up the PROMPT consortium (PROSPERO ID# CRD42018067740).
resultsResults will be published in phases as the individual participating studies are concluded and published. Results of the first phase of singleton and twin pessary trials are expected to be available in late 2022. Updates are planned as participating trials are completed and published. KEY POINTS: · Short cervical length predicts preterm birth.. · Results of prior cervical pessary trials are mixed.. · Meta-analysis of pessary trials protocol..
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.