ReviewEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2025
The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage before 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of an exam-indicated cerclage (EIC) remains uncertain due to limited evidence from reviews covering pregnancies beyond this timeframe. With the 24-week mark serving as an international threshold for neonatal care initiation, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the effectiveness of an EIC before 24 weeks of gestation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies comparing EIC with expectant management in singleton pregnancies with cervical dilation ≤ 5 cm between 14 and 24 weeks of gestation to prevent preterm birth (PTB) < 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Quality assessment was preformed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Analyses were conducted using R(studio) version 3.6.1. and outcomes stated as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Prospero: #CRD42019137400. The search yielded 787 potential studies. Four studies non-randomized (retrospective) could be included. Quality assessment showed overall good quality. The main weaknesses were retrospective designs, small sample sizes and the poor comparability of the intervention and control groups. The study population resulted in 215 women, among whom 163 (76 %) underwent cerclage placement and 52 (24 %) were expectantly managed. EIC compared with expectant management was associated with significant lower rates of PTB before 37 weeks (71.2 % vs 94.2 %; OR 0.11; 95 % CI 0.03-0.35), 34 weeks (49.1 % vs 86.5 %; OR 0.10; 95 % CI 0.03-0.31), 32 weeks (43.0 % vs 80.0 %; OR 0.13; 95 % CI 0.04-0.43), 28 weeks (43.0 % vs 75.0 %; OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.07-0.51) and 24 weeks (23.3 % vs 50 %; OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.13-0.65) of gestation, significant prolongation of the pregnancy (mean difference 39.14 days; 95 %CI 30.58-47.71; p-value <0.0001) and a greater gestational age at delivery (mean difference 4.91 weeks; 95 % CI 2.32-7.49; p-value 0.0002) compared to expectant management. The current literature suggests that EIC before 24 weeks of gestation is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes compared to expectant management. The results are limited by the lack of randomised trials and studied neonatal outcomes plus the potential for bias in the included studies.
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.