SynthesisPloS one2025
Should a repeat cervical cerclage be inserted when the primary cerclage fails, to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) occurs in 0.5-1% of pregnant women and is commonly attributed to cervical insufficiency. Cervical cerclage can reduce the rate of spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk women with a shortened cervix. Management options when primary cerclage fails are uncertain. This review aims to synthesise the evidence for repeat cervical cerclage in the same pregnancy following primary cerclage failure, to understand outcomes and aid decision making for patients and clinicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsDatabases were searched according to a prospective protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025638147). Included studies reported outcomes for pregnant women with a cervical cerclage in situ that failed and compared repeat cervical cerclage with expectant management. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of pregnancy loss; to include miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death and termination of pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included preterm birth less than 37 and less than 34 weeks, miscarriage and previable neonatal death less than 24 weeks, birthweight and gestational age at delivery. Random effects meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software (RevMan) and risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool.
resultsDatabase and citation searching retrieved 1006 titles and abstracts. There were 20 papers that underwent full text review. Six retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pregnancy loss (odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-11.62), preterm birth less than 34 weeks (OR 1.11 95% CI 0.14-8.70) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks (OR 1.88 95% CI 0.74-4.80) for repeat cervical cerclage compared to expectant management, with a trend towards improved outcomes with expectant management.
conclusionsThere was no evidence of any difference in pregnancy loss or preterm birth with or without repeat cervical cerclage. The overall quality and quantity of evidence is poor and patients should be informed of this. Further research in this area is required for informed decision making.
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.