ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025
Universal cervical-length screening to prevent preterm birth in twin pregnancy: cost-utility analysis.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Ultrasound Evaluation of Cervical Length for Predicting Spontaneous Preterm Delivery Before 34 Weeks in Twin Gestations: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this cost-utility analysis was to model the clinical and economic impact of three cervical-length screening strategies among low-risk twin pregnancies: two-step universal screening (at 18-20 and 20-22 weeks), one-step universal screening (at 18-20 weeks) and no screening.
methodsThis study used a decision-analytic model (decision tree and cohort state transition model) with a 100-year time horizon in a Canadian context. The population included dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies without a history of preterm birth or prophylactic progesterone or cerclage. The model assumed that vaginal progesterone was initiated for cervical length ≤ 25 mm and that cervical cerclage was performed plus vaginal progesterone treatment for cervical length ≤ 15mm. The primary outcomes were total lifetime health-related costs (in 2023 Canadian dollars ($)), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Clinical outcomes included the probability of preterm birth (≤ 28 and ≤ 34 weeks), probability of stillbirth and life expectancy. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out.
resultsBase-case and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, when compared with no screening, the two-step screening strategy increased the QALYs modestly (0.62 (95% credible interval (CrI), -0.16 to 1.41)) and decreased lifetime costs (-$2460 (95% CrI, -$4850 to $251)) by reducing the rate of preterm birth. The one-step screening strategy, although inferior to the two-step screening strategy, also increased the QALYs and reduced costs. Findings consistent with these were obtained on testing of the model assumptions with deterministic sensitivity analysis.
conclusionsThis cost-utility analysis supports a universal two-step screening strategy for twin pregnancies in a Canadian context. Although the conclusions of this analysis are robust in terms of the sensitivity analysis, more reliable predictions of long-term costs and quality of life require more twin-specific lifetime data. Additionally, cost-utility analyses in other healthcare contexts are needed. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.