Cited by 168Preterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsReproductive Health and Contraception

Vaginal progesterone is as effective as cervical cerclage to prevent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a short cervix: updated indirect comparison meta-analysis

Open access
Conde-Agudelo, Agustin, Romero, Roberto, Da Fonseca, Eduardo, O’Brien, John M., Cetingoz, Elcin, Creasy, George W., Hassan, Sonia S., Erez, Offer +2 more·2018·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background An indirect comparison meta-analysis published in 2013 reported that both vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally efficacious for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic short cervix. The efficacy of vaginal progesterone has been challenged after publication of the OPPTIMUM study. However, this has been resolved by an individual patient-data meta-analysis (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:161-180).Objective To compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cerclage in preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix.Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CINAHL (from their inception to March 2018); Cochrane databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.Study eligibility criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal progesterone to placebo/no treatment or cerclage to no cerclage in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a sonographic cervical length <25 mm.Study appraisal and synthesis methods Updated systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of vaginal progesterone vs cerclage using placebo/no cerclage as the common comparator. The primary outcomes were preterm birth <35 weeks of gestation and perinatal mortality. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Results Five trials comparing vaginal progesterone vs placebo (265 women) and 5 comparing cerclage vs no cerclage (504 women) were included. Vaginal progesterone, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the risk of preterm birth <35 and <32 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, neonatal sepsis, composite neonatal morbidity, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RRs from 0.29 to 0.68). Cerclage, compared to no cerclage, significantly decreased the risk of preterm birth <37, <35, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, composite perinatal morbidity/mortality, and birthweight <1500 g (RRs from 0.64 to 0.70). Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analyses did not show statistically significant differences between vaginal progesterone and cerclage in the reduction of preterm birth or adverse perinatal outcomes.Conclusion Vaginal progesterone and cerclage are equally effective for preventing preterm birth and improving perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton gestation, previous spontaneous preterm birth, and a midtrimester sonographic short cervix. The choice of treatment will depend on adverse events and cost-effectiveness of interventions and patient/physician's preferences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.028

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of women with singleton gestation, no prior spontaneous preterm birth and transvaginal sonographic CL <25mm before 24 weeks have shown that administration of vaginal progesterone significantly decreases the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity.

    “Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of women with singleton gestation, no prior spontaneous preterm birth and transvaginal sonographic CL &lt; 25mm before 24weeks have shown that administration of vaginal progesterone significantly decreases the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity 99-101 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 159 · Cited by 168

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Institute of Medicine, US Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. In: Behrman RE, Butler AS, eds. Preterm birth: causes, consequences, and prevention. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007. 20669423
  2. [75]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Preterm labor and birth. NICE guideline 25. 2015 Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng25/evidence/full-guideline2176838029. Accessed Jan. 30, 2018. 37184164
  3. [102]Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Authors
Conde-Agudelo, A., Romero, R., Da Fonseca, E., O’Brien, J. M., Cetingoz, E., Creasy, G. W., Hassan, S. S., Erez, O., Pacora, P., & Nicolaides, K. H.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Population Council (US)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Romero, Roberto
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
219
Issue
1
Pages
10-25
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2796022765
Cited by
168
References
159
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (09/800/27)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (ZIAHD002401)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
vaginal progesterone, cervical cerclage, preterm birth prevention, short cervix, singleton pregnancy, perinatal mortality, perinatal morbidity, neonatal sepsis, neonatal intensive care admission, cervical length, perinatal complications, gestational age
MeSH terms
Neonatal Sepsis, Administration, Intravaginal, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Intensive Care Units, Neonatal, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Progestins, Progesterone, Infant, Very Low Birth Weight, Cerclage, Cervical, Premature Birth, Perinatal Mortality, Cervical Length Measurement, Secondary Prevention, Infant, Extremely Premature

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review