1
|
Breuking SH, van Dijk CE, van Gils AL, van Zijl MD, Kazemier BM, Pajkrt E. The impact of cut-off values on the prevalence of short cervical length in pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 302:65-72. [PMID: 39236643 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.08.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2024] [Revised: 08/29/2024] [Accepted: 08/30/2024] [Indexed: 09/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A prior study suggested that implementing a cut-off value of ≤30 mm for a short cervical length (CL) could potentially introduce selection bias and alter the distribution of CL measurements. As such, the objective of this study is to evaluate how CL distribution and incidence of short CL are affected when using different cut-off values for a short CL. STUDY DESIGN This is a secondary analysis of the Quadruple P (QP) Screening study; a prospective cohort study that included low-risk patients with singleton pregnancies undergoing fetal anomaly scan at 18-22 weeks of gestation, including a CL measurement. Patients with a short cervix, defined as ≤35 mm, were subsequently counseled for the QP trial; a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing progesterone to cervical pessary for the prevention of preterm birth. If participation to the RCT was refused, patients with a CL ≤25 mm were advised to use progestogen. The primary objective of this current study was to assess the normal distribution of CL across the entire cohort and to assess the incidence of short CL when using the cut-off values of ≤35 and ≤25 mm. Normal distributions for CL were simulated based on mean and standard deviation(SD) of the original data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate the distribution of the CL measurements. Moreover, to evaluate the motives behind ultrasound measurements around the cut-off value, sonographers were asked to fill out a qualitative questionnaire. RESULTS The total cohort included 19.171 eligible participants who underwent CL measurement, with a mean CL of 43.9 mm (±8.1 SD). The distribution of all CL observed measurements deviated significantly from the normal distribution (p < 0.001). A total of 1.852 (9.7%) patients had short CL ≤35 mm, which was significantly lower than expected when compared to the simulated normal distribution (n = 2.661, 13.9%; p < 0.001). The incidence of short CL ≤25 mm in our cohort statistically differed from the simulated normal distribution (238, 1.2% vs 177, 0.9%; p=0.003). When comparing our data to the simulated normal distribution, the difference in distributions is most pronounced when examining the difference between 35 and 36 mm. Results of the questionnaire reveal sonographers claimed not to be influenced by a cut-off value for study participation or progesterone treatment. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that using any cut-off value for a short CL influences the incidence and distribution of CL. When using a cut-off value of ≤35 mm for study inclusion, the incidence of measurements of a short CL is lower than the anticipated incidence compared to a normal distribution. However, when using a cut-off value of ≤25 mm for progesterone treatment, the frequency of CL measurements is higher than expected below this threshold compared to a normal distribution. This study highlights the risk of introducing selection bias, most likely unintentionally, when cut-off values for short CL are used, regardless of the specific value chosen. Therefore healthcare providers should measure the CL with caution if essential decisions depend on a specific cut-off value.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sofie H Breuking
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Charlotte E van Dijk
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Annabelle L van Gils
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maud D van Zijl
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Brenda M Kazemier
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics, Wilhelmina's Children Hospital, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - E Pajkrt
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lewis AG, Shah DK, Leonis R, Rees J, Correia KFB. Racial and ethnic disparities in reproductive medicine in the United States: a narrative review of contemporary high-quality evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024:S0002-9378(24)00775-0. [PMID: 39059596 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.07.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2023] [Revised: 07/10/2024] [Accepted: 07/20/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024]
Abstract
There has been increasing debate around how or if race and ethnicity should be used in medical research-including the conceptualization of race as a biological entity, a social construct, or a proxy for racism. The objectives of this narrative review are to identify and synthesize reported racial and ethnic inequalities in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) and develop informed recommendations for racial and ethnic inequity research in ob/gyn. A reproducible search of the 8 highest impact ob/gyn journals was conducted. Articles published between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2023 containing keywords related to racial and ethnic disparities, bias, prejudice, inequalities, and inequities were included (n=318). Data were abstracted and summarized into 4 themes: 1) access to care, 2) adherence to national guidelines, 3) clinical outcomes, and 4) clinical trial diversity. Research related to each theme was organized topically under the headings i) obstetrics, ii) reproductive medicine, iii) gynecologic cancer, and iv) other. Additionally, interactive tables were developed. These include data on study timeline, population, location, and results for every article. The tables enable readers to filter by journal, publication year, race and ethnicity, and topic. Numerous studies identified adverse reproductive outcomes among racial and ethnic minorities as compared to white patients, which persist despite adjusting for differential access to care, socioeconomic or lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics. These include higher maternal morbidity and mortality among Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients; reduced success during fertility treatments for Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian patients; and lower survival rates and lower likelihood of receiving guideline concordant care for gynecological cancers for non-White patients. We conclude that many racial and ethnic inequities in ob/gyn cannot be fully attributed to patient characteristics or access to care. Research focused on explaining these disparities based on biological differences incorrectly reinforces the notion of race as a biological trait. More research that deconstructs race and assesses efficacy of interventions to reduce these disparities is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Divya K Shah
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Regina Leonis
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - John Rees
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Dijk CE, van Gils AL, van Zijl MD, Koullali B, van der Weide MC, van den Akker ES, Hermsen BJ, van Baal WM, Visser H, van Drongelen J, Vollebregt KC, Muller M, van der Made FW, Gordijn SJ, de Mooij YM, Oudijk MA, de Boer MA, Mol BW, Kazemier BM, Pajkrt E. Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a singleton pregnancy, a short cervix, and no history of spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation: open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. BMJ 2024; 384:e077033. [PMID: 38471724 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcomes and preterm birth in pregnant women of singletons with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and who have a short cervix of 35 mm or less. DESIGN Open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS Women with a healthy singleton pregnancy and an asymptomatic short cervix of 35 mm or less between 18 and 22 weeks' gestation were eligible. Exclusion criteria were prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks, a cerclage in situ, maternal age of younger than 18 years, major congenital abnormalities, prior participation in this trial, vaginal blood loss, contractions, cervical length of less than 2 mm or cervical dilatation of 3 cm or more. Sample size was set at 628 participants. INTERVENTIONS 1:1 randomisation to an Arabin cervical pessary or vaginal progesterone 200 mg daily up to 36 weeks' of gestation or earlier in case of ruptured membranes, signs of infection, or preterm labour besides routine obstetric care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was a composite adverse perinatal outcome. Secondary outcomes were rates of (spontaneous) preterm birth at less than 28, 32, 34, and 37 weeks. A predefined subgroup analysis was planned for cervical length of 25 mm or less. RESULTS From 1 July 2014 to 31 March 2022, 635 participants were randomly assigned to pessary (n=315) or to progesterone (n=320). 612 were included in the intention to treat analysis. The composite adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 19 (6%) of 303 participants with a pessary versus 17 (6%) of 309 in the progesterone group (crude relative risk 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.2)). The rates of spontaneous preterm birth were not significantly different between groups. In the subgroup of cervical length of 25 mm or less, spontaneous preterm birth at less than 28 weeks occurred more often after pessary than after progesterone (10/62 (16%) v 3/69 (4%), relative risk 3.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.9)) and adverse perinatal outcomes seemed more frequent in the pessary group (15/62 (24%) v 8/69 (12%), relative risk 2.1 (0.95 to 4.6)). CONCLUSIONS In women with a singleton pregnancy with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and with a midtrimester short cervix of 35 mm or less, pessary is not better than vaginal progesterone. In the subgroup of a cervical length of 25 mm or less, a pessary seemed less effective in preventing adverse outcomes. Overall, for women with single baby pregnancies, a short cervix, and no prior spontaneous preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation, superiority of a cervical pessary compared with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth and consecutive adverse outcomes could not be proven. TRIAL REGISTRATION International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP, EUCTR2013-002884-24-NL).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte E van Dijk
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Annabelle L van Gils
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maud D van Zijl
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Bouchra Koullali
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marijke C van der Weide
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eline S van den Akker
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Brenda J Hermsen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Henricus Visser
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ter Gooi Medical Center, Blaricum, Netherlands
| | - Joris van Drongelen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Karlijn C Vollebregt
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, Netherlands
| | - Moira Muller
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, Netherlands
| | - Flip W van der Made
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Fransiscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sanne J Gordijn
- Department of Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Yolanda M de Mooij
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, Netherlands
| | - Martijn A Oudijk
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marjon A de Boer
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ben Wj Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
- Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Brenda M Kazemier
- Department of Obstetrics, Wilhelmina's Children Hospital, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Eva Pajkrt
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|