IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0278342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of emergency cervical cerclage and expectant treatment in cervical insufficiency in singleton pregnancy: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yanfang Wei
  • Sumei Wang

Abstract

Objective: To compare the therapeutic effects of emergency cervical cerclage and expectant treatment in preterm birth due to cervical insufficiency in singleton pregnancy. Methods: A combination of subject words and free words was used to search major domestic and foreign databases. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 studies were included that met the criteria and quality evaluation and data extraction was carried out. The data were analyzed using STATA 15 and the reporting was done in reference to the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses. Results: Emergency cervical cerclage was superior to expectant treatment for the primary outcome of pregnancy prolongation (WMD = 5.752, 95% CI 5.194–6.311, 22 studies, N = 1435, I2 = 97.1%, P = 0.000). Cervical cerclage was also superior to expectant treatment for the secondary outcomes of neonatal birth weight (WMD = 1051.542, 95% CI 594.107–1508.977, 9 studies, N = 609, I2 = 96.4%, P = 0.000), neonatal Apgar 1′ (WMD = 2.8720, 95% CI: 2.105–3.639, 11 studies, N = 716, I2 = 99.0%, P = 0.000), number of live births (OR = 6.018, 95% CI 2.882–12.568, 10 studies, N = 724, I2 = 55.3%, P = 0.000), deliveries after 32 weeks (OR = 8.030, 95% CI 1.38–46.892, 8 studies, N = 381, I2 = 85.9%, P = 0.021). deliveries after 34 weeks (OR = 15.91, 95% CI 5.92–42.77, 9 studies, N = 560, I2 = 59.6%, P = 0.000), number of vaginal deliveries (OR = 3.24, 95% CI 1.32–7.90, 8 studies, N = 502, I2 = 69.4%, P = 0.018), and number of neonatal survivals (OR = 9.300, 95% CI 3.472–24.910, 10 studies, N = 654, I2 = 80.5%, P = 0.000). No difference between emergency cervical cerclage and expectant treatment was found in patients with chorioamnionitis (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 0.602–4.583, 4 studies, N = 296, I2 = 16.3%, P = 0.273). Conclusion: Before the 28th week of pregnancy, emergency cervical cerclage can significantly prolong the gestational week and improve the neonatal survival rate, compared to expectant treatment, in women with singleton pregnancies who have a dilated uterine orifice caused by cervical insufficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanfang Wei & Sumei Wang, 2023. "Comparison of emergency cervical cerclage and expectant treatment in cervical insufficiency in singleton pregnancy: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278342
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278342
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278342&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0278342?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.