ReviewCureus2025
Cervical Elastography as a Predictive Tool for Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive performance of cervical elastography for preterm birth: A head-to-head network meta-analysis.World journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in preterm birth prediction: a narrative review of current approaches and clinical applicability.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Review
- Reframing Cervical Insufficiency as a Dynamic Process in the Preterm Birth Continuum: From Fixed Disease to a Modifiable Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Evaluation of the Combined Use of Elastography and Cervicometry With the E-Cervix Index to Predict Second Trimester Preterm Birth Risk.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2025Article
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
Cervical elastography, including strain elastography (SE) and shear wave elastography (SWE), is an emerging ultrasound technique for assessing cervical stiffness, potentially enabling earlier prediction of spontaneous preterm birth than conventional sonographic measurements. However, its diagnostic performance and optimal application timing remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography for predicting spontaneous preterm birth. Databases were searched for studies published between January 2014 and March 2025. Eligible studies assessed SE or SWE in pregnant women and reported sensitivity, specificity, and/or area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for spontaneous preterm birth prediction. Data were extracted, and pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and AUC were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses explored differences between SE and SWE and the influence of gestational age at assessment. Thirteen studies (n = 4,087 women) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity was 77.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-81.5), specificity 73.3% (95% CI: 66.4-79.3), and AUC 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85), with a pooled DOR of 11.05 (95% CI: 6.85-17.83). Subgroup analysis indicated that SWE tended to yield higher sensitivity in later gestation, whereas SE showed relatively better performance in early to mid-trimester assessments. Cervical elastography demonstrated moderate to good diagnostic accuracy for predicting sPTB. SE and SWE may have complementary roles depending on gestational age, supporting their potential integration into risk assessment strategies for preterm birth prevention.
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.