| Literature DB >> 36042432 |
Carlota Rodo1, María de la Calle2, Anna Maroto3, Nerea Maiz4, Silvia Arévalo5, Pablo Garcia-Manau5, Manel Mendoza5, José Luis Bartha2, Elena Carreras5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop gestational age-based reference ranges for cervical length in triplet pregnancies. The secondary objective was to assess the performance of cervical length measured between 18 and 20 + 6 days for the prediction of preterm delivery before 28 and 32 weeks, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Cerclage; Cervical length; Gestational age-based reference ranges; Pessary; Preterm delivery; Triplet pregnancy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36042432 PMCID: PMC9426284 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04997-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.105
Fig. 1Gestational age-based reference ranges for cervical length
Gestational age-based reference rages for cervical length in triplet pregnancies
| Gestational age (weeks) | n | Observed mean | Observed SD | Observed 5th percentile | Observed Median | Observed 95th percentile | Estimated Median | Estimated 5th percentile | Estimated 95th percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 19 | 39,7 | 5,5 | 30,5 | 41,0 | 45,3 | 40,2 | 24,8 | 47,3 |
| 16 | 18 | 38,1 | 5,2 | 30,9 | 37,0 | 46,3 | 38,8 | 22,1 | 47,5 |
| 17 | 22 | 36,0 | 5,9 | 25,3 | 35,5 | 44,9 | 37,4 | 19,7 | 47,6 |
| 18 | 32 | 37,8 | 6,9 | 29,0 | 38,0 | 47,0 | 36,0 | 17,5 | 47,6 |
| 19 | 52 | 37,3 | 6,8 | 28,6 | 38,0 | 48,0 | 34,7 | 15,5 | 47,5 |
| 20 | 77 | 34,1 | 9,0 | 13,0 | 35,0 | 45,0 | 33,5 | 13,7 | 47,3 |
| 21 | 61 | 34,1 | 10,3 | 13,0 | 36,0 | 47,0 | 32,2 | 12,1 | 47,0 |
| 22 | 60 | 31,9 | 13,2 | 6,7 | 34,5 | 47,1 | 31,1 | 10,8 | 46,5 |
| 23 | 71 | 30,0 | 10,9 | 13,0 | 33,0 | 45,0 | 29,9 | 9,6 | 46,0 |
| 24 | 95 | 29,1 | 12,0 | 6,7 | 31,0 | 45,3 | 28,8 | 8,7 | 45,4 |
| 25 | 73 | 23,6 | 10,7 | 9,2 | 22,0 | 40,0 | 27,8 | 8,0 | 44,6 |
| 26 | 86 | 26,3 | 12,4 | 5,0 | 28,0 | 45,8 | 26,8 | 7,5 | 43,8 |
| 27 | 91 | 25,1 | 10,7 | 9,0 | 26,0 | 44,0 | 25,8 | 7,2 | 42,8 |
| 28 | 74 | 24,3 | 11,2 | 4,0 | 25,5 | 41,0 | 24,9 | 7,1 | 41,8 |
| 29 | 95 | 24,6 | 10,0 | 9,7 | 25,0 | 39,0 | 24,0 | 7,3 | 40,6 |
| 30 | 63 | 22,8 | 9,2 | 8,2 | 22,0 | 37,9 | 23,1 | 7,6 | 39,4 |
| 31 | 85 | 22,4 | 9,6 | 10,0 | 22,0 | 36,8 | 22,3 | 8,2 | 38,0 |
| 32 | 52 | 21,9 | 8,9 | 9,6 | 22,0 | 37,5 | 21,6 | 9,0 | 36,6 |
| 33 | 33 | 22,9 | 8,2 | 10,6 | 25,0 | 35,0 | 20,8 | 10,0 | 35,0 |
| 34 | 3 | 23,7 | 8,5 | 15,3 | 27,0 | 29,7 | 20,1 | 11,2 | 33,3 |
n Number of measurements acquired
Fig. 2Cervical length dynamics for preterm delivery before 28 weeks’ gestation, between 28 and 32 weeks, and after 32 weeks’ gestation
Fig. 3ROC curve for prediction of preterm delivery at 28.0 weeks’ gestation
Fig. 4ROC curve for prediction of preterm delivery at 32.0 weeks’ gestation
Performance of cervical length in screening for preterm birth before 28 and 32 weeks
| Prediction of delivery before 28 weeks | ||||
| Threshold | FPR | DR (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) |
| NA | 5% | 40.9% (18.2–59.1%) | 54.8% (31.3–66.3%) | 90.0% (86.8–93.3%) |
| NA | 10% | 40.9% (22.7–63.6%) | 40.5% (27.5–51.5%) | 90.1% (87.5–93.7%) |
| 24.5 | 4.5% (1.5–8.3%) | 40.9% (22.7–63.6%) | 61.1% (38.5–84.6%) | 90.7% (88.0–93.9%) |
| Prediction of delivery before 32 weeks | ||||
| NA | 5% | 22.0% (7.2–36.0%) | 67.9% (40.9–77.6%) | 71.7% (68.0–75.5%) |
| NA | 10% | 26.0% (14.4–38.8%) | 55.6% (40.9–65.1%) | 71.7% (68.6–75.4%) |
| 38.5 | 55.8% (46.2–66.4%) | 82.0% (70.0–92.0%) | 41.4% (36.046.9%) | 83.9% (74.5–92.1%) |
FPR False positive rate, DR Detection rate, PPV Positive predictive value, NPV Negative predictive value, CI Confidence interval, NA Not available