Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2019
Use of the Pessary in the Prevention of Preterm Delivery.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Corrêa Thayane Delazari, Amorim Ester Gomes, Tomazelli Jade Aimée Guimarães, Corrêa Mário Dias
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The gestational complication most associated with perinatal mortality and morbidity is spontaneous preterm birth with gestational age < 37 weeks. Therefore, it is necessary to identify its risk factors and attempt its prevention. The benefits of the pessary in prematurity are under investigation. Our objective was to analyze the use of the pessary in the prevention of preterm births in published studies, and to compare its efficacy with other methods.
METHODS: Randomized clinical trials published between 2010 and 2018 were selected from electronic databases. Studies on multiple gestations were excluded.
RESULTS: Two studies were in favor of the pessary as a preventive method, one study was contrary to the method and another two showed no statistically significant difference. The meta-analysis showed no statistical difference with the use of a cervical pessary in the reduction of births < 37 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.63; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.38-1.06) and < 34 weeks (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.35-1.57) CONCLUSION: The pooled data available to date seems to show a lack of efficacy of the cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm birth, although the heterogeneity of the studies made comparisons more difficult.
METHODS: Randomized clinical trials published between 2010 and 2018 were selected from electronic databases. Studies on multiple gestations were excluded.
RESULTS: Two studies were in favor of the pessary as a preventive method, one study was contrary to the method and another two showed no statistically significant difference. The meta-analysis showed no statistical difference with the use of a cervical pessary in the reduction of births < 37 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.63; confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.38-1.06) and < 34 weeks (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.35-1.57) CONCLUSION: The pooled data available to date seems to show a lack of efficacy of the cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm birth, although the heterogeneity of the studies made comparisons more difficult.