cervical length measurement
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

154
(FIVE YEARS 22)

H-INDEX

16
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S635
Author(s):  
Georgios Doulaveris ◽  
Corinne Weeks ◽  
Kavita Vani ◽  
Gabrielle Concepcion ◽  
Fatima A. Estrada ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S649
Author(s):  
Marie-Julie Trahan ◽  
Richard Brown ◽  
Ruxandra Penta ◽  
Eva Suarthana ◽  
Karen Wou

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (S1) ◽  
pp. 286-286
Author(s):  
A. Kammoun ◽  
K. Magdoud ◽  
M. Farhati ◽  
F. Affes ◽  
A. Karoui ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245746
Author(s):  
T. G. Bortoletto ◽  
T. V. Silva ◽  
A. Borovac-Pinheiro ◽  
C. M. Pereira ◽  
A. D. Silva ◽  
...  

Background The uterine cervical length is an important risk factor for preterm birth. The aim of this study was to assess cervical length distribution in women with singleton pregnancies, measured by transvaginal ultrasound between 16 and 24 weeks, and its association with population characteristics. Materials and methods We searched electronic databases and other sources for studies published from April 1, 1990 to July 21, 2020. Of the 2019 retrieved publications, full-text versions of 137 articles were considered. We included 77 original articles that reported cervical length measurements of 363,431 women. The main aim of this study was to identify the pattern of cervical length in different populations. We collected demographic and clinical data concerning the population, in addition to information regarding the ultrasound examination and cervical length measurement. Regarding study bias, 56 were at low risk of bias and 21 were at medium risk of bias. Results The meta-analysis included 57 articles with data from 158,346 women. The mean cervical length was 37.96. mm (95% CI [36.68, 39.24]). Cervical length was shorter in women from Africa and Asia, in those from low-income countries, with a lower body weight, and in those who delivered before 37 gestational weeks. We found that the cervical length from pooled studies is longer than that usually discussed in the literature. Regarding limitations, we had difficulty assessing our main variable because there was no consistent pattern in the way authors reported cervical length measurement. Another limitation was the great heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions The use of a single cutoff value to define a short cervix diagnosis, an important risk factor for preterm birth, may not be correct and cervical length must be considered according to maternal population characteristics. Future studies should identify different specific curves and cutoff values for cervical length in different populations. This meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO database under CRD42017070246 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=70246.


2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. S218-S219
Author(s):  
Robert Fresch ◽  
Braxton Forde ◽  
Mounira Habli ◽  
Sammy Tabbah ◽  
David McKinney ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document