Lisa Dawes1,2, Katie Groom3,4, Vanessa Jordan5,6, Jason Waugh4,5. 1. Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. l.dawes@auckland.ac.nz. 2. National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. l.dawes@auckland.ac.nz. 3. Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. 4. National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Cochrane New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Specialised preterm birth clinics care for women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth. This systematic review assesses current practice within preterm birth clinics globally. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify all studies on preterm birth clinics on the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases. There were no restrictions to study design. Studies were limited to the English language and publications from 1998 onwards. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, performed data extraction and reviewed methodological quality. Primary outcomes were referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics. Secondary outcomes were the timing of planned first and last appointments and frequency of review. RESULTS: Thirty-two records fulfilled eligibility criteria and 20 studies were included in the main analysis following grouping of records describing the same study or clinic. Studies were of mixed study design and methodological quality. A total of 39 clinics were described; outcome data was not available for all clinics. Referral criteria included previous spontaneous preterm birth (38/38, 100%), previous mid-trimester loss (34/38, 89%) and previous cervical surgery (33/38, 87%). All clinics offered transvaginal cervical length scans. Additional investigations varied, including urogenital swabs (16/28, 57%) and fetal fibronectin (8/28, 29%). The primary treatment of choice for a sonographic short cervix was cervical cerclage in 10/33 (30%) clinics and vaginal progesterone in 6/33 (18%), with 10/33 (30%) using multiple first-line options and 6/33 (18%) using a combination of treatments. The majority of clinics planned timing of first review for 12-16 weeks (30/35, 86%) and the frequency of review was usually determined by clinical findings (18/24, 75%). There was a wide variation in gestational age at clinic discharge between 24 and 37 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in the referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics and in the timing and frequency of review. Consistency in practice may improve with the introduction of consensus guidelines and national preterm birth prevention programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration number: CRD42019131470.
BACKGROUND: Specialised preterm birth clinics care for women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth. This systematic review assesses current practice within preterm birth clinics globally. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify all studies on preterm birth clinics on the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases. There were no restrictions to study design. Studies were limited to the English language and publications from 1998 onwards. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, performed data extraction and reviewed methodological quality. Primary outcomes were referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics. Secondary outcomes were the timing of planned first and last appointments and frequency of review. RESULTS: Thirty-two records fulfilled eligibility criteria and 20 studies were included in the main analysis following grouping of records describing the same study or clinic. Studies were of mixed study design and methodological quality. A total of 39 clinics were described; outcome data was not available for all clinics. Referral criteria included previous spontaneous preterm birth (38/38, 100%), previous mid-trimester loss (34/38, 89%) and previous cervical surgery (33/38, 87%). All clinics offered transvaginal cervical length scans. Additional investigations varied, including urogenital swabs (16/28, 57%) and fetal fibronectin (8/28, 29%). The primary treatment of choice for a sonographic short cervix was cervical cerclage in 10/33 (30%) clinics and vaginal progesterone in 6/33 (18%), with 10/33 (30%) using multiple first-line options and 6/33 (18%) using a combination of treatments. The majority of clinics planned timing of first review for 12-16 weeks (30/35, 86%) and the frequency of review was usually determined by clinical findings (18/24, 75%). There was a wide variation in gestational age at clinic discharge between 24 and 37 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in the referral criteria, investigations and interventions offered in preterm birth clinics and in the timing and frequency of review. Consistency in practice may improve with the introduction of consensus guidelines and national preterm birth prevention programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration number: CRD42019131470.