4.3 Review

Cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.03.013

Keywords

Cervical cerclage; Cervical length; Meta-analysis; Preterm birth; Twin pregnancies

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC1004603]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study comprehensively evaluated the value of cervical cerclage as a treatment strategy to prevent preterm birth in twin pregnancies, finding that for twin pregnancies with a cervical length <15 mm, cervical cerclage was associated with a significant reduction in preterm birth risk.
Objective: Data on the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies with cervical cerclage remain inconsistent. Thus, this study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the value of cervical cerclage as a treatment strategy to prevent preterm birth in twin pregnancies with regard to both maternal and neonatal outcomes. Study design: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant studies and trials from their inception up to December 2020. Outcomes were expressed as risk ratios and standardized mean differences in a meta-analysis model using STATA 15.0 software. Results: The search included 944 studies, 15 of which were eligible for inclusion, representing 726 patients treated with cervical cerclage and 8578 non-cerclage treatment controls. When the cervical length was <15 mm, the risk ratio of preterm birth at <37 weeks (0.77, p = 0.01), <34 weeks (0.58, p = 0.002), and <32 weeks (0.61, p = 0.024) of gestation in the cerclage group was significantly lower than that in the non-cerclage group. Conclusion: For twin pregnancies with a cervical length <15 mm, cervical cerclage was associated with significant reduction in preterm birth. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available