The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Progesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27). INTERPRETATION: Vaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure
(1979) · Scandinavian Journal of Statistics · doi:10.2307/4615733 · Cited by 21,526
Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha–hydroxyprogesterone caproate
Meis, P. J., Klebanoff, M., Thom, E., Dombrowski, M. P., Sibai, B., Moawad, A. H., Spong, C. Y., Hauth, J. C., Miodovnik, M., Varner, M. W., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa035140 · Cited by 1,555
Progesterone and the Risk of Preterm Birth among Women with a Short Cervix
Fonseca, E. B., Celik, E., Parra, M., Singh, M., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa067815 · Cited by 1,086
Hassan, S. S., Romero, R., Vidyadhari, D., Fusey, S., Baxter, J. K., Khandelwal, M., Vijayaraghavan, J., Trivedi, Y., Soma‐Pillay, P., Sambarey, P., et al. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.9017 · Cited by 923
da Fonseca, E. B., Bittar, R. E., Carvalho, M. H. B., & Zugaib, M. (2003) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2003.41 · Cited by 789
Long-Term Effects of Indomethacin Prophylaxis in Extremely-Low-Birth-Weight Infants
Schmidt, B., Davis, P., Moddemann, D., Ohlsson, A., Roberts, R. S., Saigal, S., Solimano, A., Vincer, M., & Wright, L. L. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200106283442602 · Cited by 725
Romero, R., Nicolaides, K., Conde-Agudelo, A., Tabor, A., O'Brien, J. M., Cetingoz, E., Da Fonseca, E., Creasy, G. W., Klein, K., Rode, L., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.003 · Cited by 580
A Clinical Trial of Progesterone for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Skolnick, B. E., Maas, A. I., Narayan, R. K., van der Hoop, R. G., MacAllister, T., Ward, J. D., Nelson, N. R., & Stocchetti, N. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1411090 · Cited by 505
Thinking Outside the Pillbox — Medication Adherence as a Priority for Health Care Reform
Cutler, D. M., & Everett, W. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1002305 · Cited by 459
MacKay, D. F., Smith, G. C. S., Dobbie, R., & Pell, J. P. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000289 · Cited by 437
Cited by
Romero, R., Conde-Agudelo, A., Da Fonseca, E., O’Brien, J. M., Cetingoz, E., Creasy, G. W., Hassan, S. S., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.576 · Cited by 522
Prediction and Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth
(2021) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004479 · Cited by 377
Hoffman, M. K., Goudar, S. S., Kodkany, B. S., Metgud, M., Somannavar, M., Okitawutshu, J., Lokangaka, A., Tshefu, A., Bose, C. L., Mwapule, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32973-3 · Cited by 360
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. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.028 · Cited by 168
Sneider, K., Christiansen, O. B., Sundtoft, I. B., & Langhoff‐Roos, J. (2016) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13027 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Norman, J. E., Marlow, N., Messow, C.-M., Shennan, A., Bennett, P. R., Thornton, S., Robson, S. C., McConnachie, A., Petrou, S., Sebire, N. J., Lavender, T., Whyte, S., & Norrie, J.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 387
- Issue
- 10033
- Pages
- 2106-2116
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2276408674
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 51.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00350-0
- The paper
- Norman, J. E., Marlow, N., Messow, C.-M., Shennan, A., Bennett, P. R., Thornton, S., Robson, S. C., McConnachie, A., Petrou, S., Sebire, N. J., Lavender, T., Whyte, S., & Norrie, J. (2016). Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00350-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.