SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
First-trimester cervical length screening and the risk of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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.
- Longitudinal evaluation of cervical length for the prediction of mid-trimester cervical length in low-risk population.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Predictive value of cervical shear wave elastography combined with cervical morphological parameters for preterm birth after cerclage in patients with cervical insufficiency.Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical utility of first-trimester cervical length (CL) measurement remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between first-trimester CL measurement and preterm birth (PTB) risk.
methodsThis study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023462610). A comprehensive search was conducted across four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) until January 29, 2024, using MeSH terms and keywords. We included randomized controlled trials, comparative observational studies, and retrospective studies that examined first-trimester CL measurement and reported PTB as a primary or secondary outcome. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction, resolving discrepancies through discussion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted, with heterogeneity evaluated via I² statistics.
resultsFive studies comprising 16,053 pregnancies were included. CL was significantly shorter in individuals delivering before 34 weeks compared to those delivering at or after 34 weeks, with a pooled mean difference of -0.59 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.14 to -0.04; p = 0.04; I²=72.56%). Similarly, those delivering before 37 weeks had a significantly shorter CL than those delivering at or after 37 weeks, with a pooled mean difference of -0.23 mm (95% CI: -0.43 to -0.03; p = 0.02; I²=76.26%).
conclusionFirst-trimester CL measurement is significantly associated with PTB risk. However, due to study heterogeneity and physiological variability in early pregnancy, its clinical utility as a predictive tool remains uncertain. Further research with standardized protocols and larger cohorts is needed to assess its role in screening and early intervention strategies for both low- and high-risk pregnancies.
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.