4.5 Review

Cerclage for short cervix in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials using individual patient-level data

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12600

关键词

Preterm birth; cerclage; twins; cervical length; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of cerclage for preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancies with a short cervical length. DesignWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis. Searches were performed in electronic databases. SettingSidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. PopulationTwin pregnancies in mothers with short cervical length. MethodsWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials of twin pregnancies screened by transvaginal ultrasound in second trimester and where mothers had a short cervical length <25mm before 24weeks. Eligible women had to be randomized to cerclage vs. no-cerclage (control). Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was preterm birth<34weeks. ResultsThree trials with 49 twin gestations with a short cervical length were identified. All original databases for each included trial were obtained from the primary authors. Risk factors were similar in the cerclage and control groups, except that previous preterm birth was more frequent and gestational age at randomization and delivery were earlier in the cerclage group compared with the control group. Adjusting for previous preterm birth and gestational age at randomization, there were no statistically significant differences in primary (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.23-3.79) and secondary outcomes. Rates of very low birthweight and of respiratory distress syndrome were significantly higher in the cerclage group than in the control group. ConclusionBased on these Level 1 data, cerclage cannot currently be recommended for clinical use in twin pregnancies with a maternal short cervical length in the second trimester. Large trials are still necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据