Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39239933›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Cerclage suture type to prevent pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage: the C-STICH RCT.

Victoria Hodgetts Morton, Catherine A Moakes, Jane Daniels, Lee Middleton, Andrew Shennan, Peter Brocklehurst, Fidan Israfil-Bayli, Andrew K Ewer, James Gray, Nigel Ab Simpson and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    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

17 authors.

Victoria Hodgetts MortonInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9817-4313
Catherine A MoakesInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0473-0532
Jane DanielsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3324-6771
Lee MiddletonInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4621-1922
Andrew ShennanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5273-3132
Peter BrocklehurstInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9950-6751
Fidan Israfil-BayliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4751-8857
Andrew K EwerInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3825-4781
James GrayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4169-3141
Nigel Ab SimpsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0758-7583
Jane E NormanUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6031-6953
Christoph LeesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2104-5561
Konstantinos TryposkiadisInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2516-1180
Clive StubbsInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2690-6583
Max HughesInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7058-0109
R Katie MorrisInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1247-429X
Philip Toozs-HobsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1859-9934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Second trimester miscarriage and preterm birth is a significant global problem. Surgical cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. It utilises either a monofilament or braided suture. It is hypothesised that a braided material becomes colonised with pathogenic bacteria that causes vaginal dysbiosis, infection and cerclage failure. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material as opposed to a braided suture material on pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage. Design: Superiority open randomised controlled trial. Setting: Seventy-five maternity sites across the UK. Participants: Women experiencing a singleton pregnancy requiring a cervical cerclage. Interventions: Monofilament suture or braided suture. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life). Secondary outcomes included the core outcome set for preterm birth. Methods: Women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to monofilament or braided cerclage utilising a bespoke randomisation service with minimisation dependent on the site, indication for cerclage, intention to use progesterone and planned surgical technique. The inclusion criteria were three or more previous mid-trimester losses or preterm births, insertion of a cerclage in a previous pregnancy, a history of a mid-trimester loss or preterm birth with a shortened cervical length in the current pregnancy or in women who clinicians deemed at risk of preterm birth. The exclusion criteria were an emergency or rescue cerclage, age of < 18 years, being unable to give informed consent or the cerclage having to be placed abdominally. The original sample size was calculated based on a relative risk reduction of 41% from a pregnancy loss rate of 19% in the braided group to 11% in the monofilament group with 90% power and alpha at Results: A total of 2049 women were randomised, after withdrawals and loss to follow-up, data on 1005 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group were included. The baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups (80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference: 0.002, 95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.03). Limitations: The trial did not collect long-term paediatric outcomes. There were no safety concerns. Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss between a monofilament suture and a braided suture. Future work: Long-term follow-up of neonates born within the C-STICH (cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes) trial. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousCerclage, CervicalPremature BirthAdultFemaleHumansPregnancySuturesSuture TechniquesUnited KingdomPREGNANCYPREGNANCY TRIMESTERPREMATURE BIRTHRANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALSECOND TRIMESTER MISCARRIAGESUTURESVAGINAL CERVICAL CERCLAGE

Identifiers

PMID39239933
PMCPMC11403380

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.