Emily S Miller1, Alan T Tita, William A Grobman. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Divisions of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether there are demographic or clinical characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of having a short cervix and whether these characteristics can be used to optimize cervical length screening. METHODS: This is a cohort study of women with a singleton gestation without a history of spontaneous preterm birth who underwent routine transvaginal second-trimester cervical length screening. Seven risk factors for preterm birth were compared by cervical length status. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for a short cervix (cervical length 2.5 cm or less). Different prediction models for a short cervix, based on the number of risk factors present, were developed and test characteristics for cervical length assessment for different risk-based screening approaches were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 18,250 women screened, 164 (0.9%) had a short cervix. Maternal age and conception by in vitro fertilization were not significantly associated with a short cervix. However, black (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.42-5.87) and Hispanic (adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10-2.74) race-ethnicity, current tobacco use (adjusted OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.56-8.62), prior indicated preterm birth (adjusted OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.26-4.05), and having a prior cervical excisional procedure (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.86-4.70) were independent risk factors for a short cervix. If only women with any of these variables present were offered transvaginal cervical length screening, the specificity increases from 62.8% for universal screening to 96.5% with a risk-based approach. The sensitivity with one variable present to offer transvaginal scanning was 62.8% and with two factors 14%. CONCLUSION: Limiting cervical length screening to women with at least one of the identified risk factors for a short cervix substantially decreases the number of ultrasonograms for cervical length assessment. However, this strategy results in nearly 40% of women with a short cervix not being ascertained. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether there are demographic or clinical characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of having a short cervix and whether these characteristics can be used to optimize cervical length screening. METHODS: This is a cohort study of women with a singleton gestation without a history of spontaneous preterm birth who underwent routine transvaginal second-trimester cervical length screening. Seven risk factors for preterm birth were compared by cervical length status. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for a short cervix (cervical length 2.5 cm or less). Different prediction models for a short cervix, based on the number of risk factors present, were developed and test characteristics for cervical length assessment for different risk-based screening approaches were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 18,250 women screened, 164 (0.9%) had a short cervix. Maternal age and conception by in vitro fertilization were not significantly associated with a short cervix. However, black (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.42-5.87) and Hispanic (adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10-2.74) race-ethnicity, current tobacco use (adjusted OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.56-8.62), prior indicated preterm birth (adjusted OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.26-4.05), and having a prior cervical excisional procedure (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.86-4.70) were independent risk factors for a short cervix. If only women with any of these variables present were offered transvaginal cervical length screening, the specificity increases from 62.8% for universal screening to 96.5% with a risk-based approach. The sensitivity with one variable present to offer transvaginal scanning was 62.8% and with two factors 14%. CONCLUSION: Limiting cervical length screening to women with at least one of the identified risk factors for a short cervix substantially decreases the number of ultrasonograms for cervical length assessment. However, this strategy results in nearly 40% of women with a short cervix not being ascertained. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Lorene A Temming; Jennifer K Durst; Methodius G Tuuli; Molly J Stout; Jeffrey M Dicke; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: M Sean Esplin; Michal A Elovitz; Jay D Iams; Corette B Parker; Ronald J Wapner; William A Grobman; Hyagriv N Simhan; Deborah A Wing; David M Haas; Robert M Silver; Matthew K Hoffman; Alan M Peaceman; Steve N Caritis; Samuel Parry; Pathik Wadhwa; Tatiana Foroud; Brian M Mercer; Shannon M Hunter; George R Saade; Uma M Reddy Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexis B Dunn; Anne L Dunlop; Andrew H Miller; Carol J Hogue; Jordan M Crofton; Elizabeth J Corwin Journal: J Perinat Neonatal Nurs Date: 2019 Oct/Dec Impact factor: 1.638
Authors: Soo Hyun Cho; Kyo Hoon Park; Eun Young Jung; Jung Kyung Joo; Ji Ae Jang; Ha Na Yoo Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Alberto Borges Peixoto; Taciana Mara Rodrigues da Cunha Caldas; Luisa Almeida Tahan; Caetano Galvão Petrini; Wellington P Martins; Fabricio Da Silva Costa; Edward Araujo Júnior Journal: Obstet Gynecol Sci Date: 2017-07-14
Authors: Panagiotis Tsikouras; George Anastasopoulos; Vasileios Maroulis; Anastasia Bothou; Anna Chalkidou; Dorelia Deuteraiou; Xanthoula Anthoulaki; Georgios Tsatsaris; Arzou Halil Bourazan; George Iatrakis; Stefanos Zervoudis; Georgios Galazios; Lola-Katerina Inagamova; Roland Csorba; Alexander-Tobias Teichmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.390