Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39012912›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2024

Comparing cervical cerclage, pessary and vaginal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix (SuPPoRT): A multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Natasha L Hezelgrave, Natalie Suff, Paul Seed, Vicky Robinson, Jenny Carter, Helena Watson, Alexandra Ridout, Anna L David, Susana Pereira, Fatemeh Hoveyda and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Natasha L HezelgraveDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Natalie SuffDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0736-7046
Paul SeedDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7904-7933
Vicky RobinsonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jenny CarterDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2550-6465
Helena WatsonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alexandra RidoutDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0988-7229
Anna L DavidElizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0199-6140
Susana PereiraThe Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Fatemeh HoveydaCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Joanna GirlingWest Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Latha VinayakaraoPoole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, United Kingdom.
Rachel M TribeDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew H ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
SuPPoRT Collaborating Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cerclage, cervical pessary, and vaginal progesterone have each been shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) in high-risk women, but to our knowledge, there has been no randomised comparison of the 3 interventions. The SuPPoRT "Stitch, Pessary, or Progesterone Randomised Trial" was designed to compare the rate of PTB <37 weeks between each intervention in women who develop a short cervix in pregnancy. METHODS AND

findingsSuPPoRT was a multicentre, open label 3-arm randomised controlled trial designed to demonstrate equivalence (equivalence margin 20%) conducted from 1 July 2015 to 1 July 2021 in 19 obstetric units in the United Kingdom. Asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies with transvaginal ultrasound cervical lengths measuring <25 mm between 14+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation were eligible for randomisation (1:1:1) to receive either vaginal cervical cerclage (n = 128), cervical pessary (n = 126), or vaginal progesterone (n = 132). Minimisation variables were gestation at recruitment, body mass index (BMI), and risk factor for PTB. The primary outcome was PTB <37 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes included PTB <34 weeks', <30 weeks', and adverse perinatal outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat. A total of 386 pregnant women between 14+0 and 23+6 weeks' gestation with a cervical length <25 mm were randomised to one of the 3 interventions. Of these women, 67% were of white ethnicity, 18% black ethnicity, and 7.5% Asian ethnicity. Mean BMI was 25.6. Over 85% of women had prior risk factors for PTB; 39.1% had experienced a spontaneous PTB or midtrimester loss (>14 weeks gestation); and 45.8% had prior cervical surgery. Data from 381 women were available for outcome analysis. Using binary regression, randomised therapies (cerclage versus pessary versus vaginal progesterone) were found to have similar effects on the primary outcome PTB <37 weeks (39/127 versus 38/122 versus 32/132, p = 0.4, cerclage versus pessary risk difference (RD) -0.7% [-12.1 to 10.7], cerclage versus progesterone RD 6.2% [-5.0 to 17.0], and progesterone versus pessary RD -6.9% [-17.9 to 4.1]). Similarly, no difference was seen for PTB <34 and 30 weeks, nor adverse perinatal outcome. There were some differences in the mild side effect profile between interventions (vaginal discharge and bleeding) and women randomised to progesterone reported more severe abdominal pain. A small proportion of women did not receive the intervention as per protocol; however, per-protocol and as-treated analyses showed similar results. The main study limitation was that the trial was underpowered for neonatal outcomes and was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionsIn this study, we found that for women who develop a short cervix, cerclage, pessary, and vaginal progesterone were equally efficacious at preventing PTB, as judged with a 20% equivalence margin. Commencing with any of the therapies would be reasonable clinical management. These results can be used as a counselling tool for clinicians when managing women with a short cervix.

trial registrationEU Clinical Trials register. EudraCT Number: 2015-000456-15, clinicaltrialsregister.eu., ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN13364447, isrctn.com.

Indexed as

Cerclage, CervicalCervix UteriPessariesPremature BirthProgesteroneAdministration, IntravaginalAdultCervical Length MeasurementFemaleHumansPregnancyTreatment OutcomeProgesterone

Identifiers

PMID39012912
PMCPMC11288449

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.