Cited by 178Preterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsInfant Development and Preterm Care

Cervical length and dilatation of the internal cervical os detected by vaginal ultrasonography as markers for preterm delivery: A systematic review

Leitich, Harald, Brunbauer, Mathias, Kaider, Alexandra, Egarter, Christian, Husslein, Peter·1999·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective We performed a systematic review to evaluate endovaginal cervical ultrasonography as a predictor of preterm delivery.Study design Selection criteria were original published English-language reports of prospective studies including women at <37 weeks' gestation with intact amniotic membranes. Parameters and outcomes were cervical length or dilatation of the internal cervical os and preterm delivery.Results In 3 subgroups of studies including patients with preterm labor or low-risk, symptom-free patients with early (20-24 weeks) or late (27-32 weeks) ultrasonographic examination, optimal cutoff values for cervical lengths ranged between 18 and 30, 25 and 35, or 25 and 39 mm. At these cutoff values, sensitivity rates were between 68% and 100%, 33% and 54%, or 63% and 76%, and specificity rates were between 44% and 79%, 73% and 91%, or 59% and 69%, respectively. Sensitivity rates for dilatation of the internal cervical os were 70% to 100%, 16% to 25%, or 33%, and specificity rates were 54% to 75%, 95% to 99%, or 92%, respectively.Conclusion In patients with symptoms of preterm labor, endovaginal cervical ultrasonography appears to be an effective predictor of preterm delivery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70407-2

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • With a cervical length greater than 30 mm, the likelihood of delivering in the next week is about 1%, and most women can be safely discharged without treatment.

    “With a cervical length greater than 30 mm, the likelihood of delivering in the next week is about 1%, and most women can be safely discharged without treatment.124”

    From Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth (2008) · cites this paper as [124]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leitich, H., Brunbauer, M., Kaider, A., Egarter, C., & Husslein, P.
Affiliations
University of Vienna (AT)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
181
Issue
6
Pages
1465-1472
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032392964
Cited by
178
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
Keywords
cervical length, preterm birth prediction, preterm labor, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity, low-risk pregnancy
MeSH terms
Cervix Uteri, Female, Humans, Obstetric Labor, Premature, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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