<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojim
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Open Journal of Internal Medicine
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2162-5972
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2162-5980
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/ojim.2024.142021
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    ojim-134219
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Medicine 
     </subject>
     <subject>
       Healthcare
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    Effectiveness of Prophylactic Transvaginal Cervical Cerclage in Improving Clinical Outcomes among Pregnant Women with Cervical Insufficiency: Meta-Analysis
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Xiaojing
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Dong
      </given-names>
     </name>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Sreynit
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Chan
      </given-names>
     </name>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="affnull">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment Name of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     29
    </day> 
    <month>
     04
    </month>
    <year>
     2024
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    14
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    02
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    228
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    246
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      13,
     </day>
     <month>
      May
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      25,
     </day>
     <month>
      May
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      25,
     </day>
     <month>
      June
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    <b>Background</b>
    <b>:</b> Cervical insufficiency is one of the major causes of preterm birth among pregnant women that leads to severe mortality and morbidity issues among newborns. Prophylactic cervical cerclage is a surgical procedure performed between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation upon diagnosis of cervix insufficiency among pregnant women. 
    <b>Aims</b>
    <b> </b>
    <b>&amp;</b>
    <b> </b>
    <b>Objectives</b>
    <b>:</b> In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic cervical cerclage in comparison to other interventions to treat cervical insufficiency among pregnant women using a meta-analysis approach. 
    <b>Methods</b>
    <b>:</b>
    <b> </b>We searched the three databases (Coachrane Library, PubMed, and MEDLINE) that were used for articles related to research aims by using MeSH keywords. The timeline of research was set from January 2015 to January 2024. The methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I). A recent meta-analysis was conducted by using Review Manager 5.4.0 software. 
    <b>Results</b>
    <b>:</b>
    <b> </b>About 441 research articles were extracted from three electronic databases and only 125 articles were assessed for eligibility criteria. Finally, 8 studies were included in the analysis for a recent meta-analysis. Six out of eight included retrospective or pilot studies were graded as having a moderate risk of bias, and two studies had low risk on the basis of owning bias. About 1008 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency were analyzed in a recent meta-analysis. By pooled analysis, it was evaluated that significant difference found in prolongation of delivery weeks (Mean difference = 1.05; Cl: 0.81 to 1.29: p &gt; 0.00001), number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks (OR = 0.59; Cl: 0.19 to 1.84: p &gt; 0.006), and preterm birth (OR = 0.73; Cl: 0.42 to 1.28: p &gt; 0.50) among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage as compared to other treatment strategies. 
    <b>Conclusion</b>
    <b>:</b>
    <b> </b>Recent meta-analysis suggested the prophylactic cervical cerclage reduces the rates of preterm birth, abortion rates, number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks, and other complications as compared to the other cervical cerclage types and conservative treatments.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Prophylactic Transvaginal Cervical Cerclage
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Cervical Insufficiency
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Pregnant Women
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>Among perinatal health issues, preterm birth is still the leading cause of disability and perinatal death <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-1">
     [1]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-2">
     [2]
    </xref>. Preterm or premature birth is defined as a baby born alive, having a gestation period of less than 37 weeks, according to World Health Organization (WHO) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-3">
     [3]
    </xref>. In 2020, about 13.4 million preterm babies were born and the incidence rates of preterm birth are still increasing globally <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-4">
     [4]
    </xref>. About 10.6% of infants are born with preterm birth globally, and the incidence rates vary from 8.7% to 13.4% across different regions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-5">
     [5]
    </xref>. In other words, about 12.9 million preterm deliveries are reported annually, leading to severe perinatal morbidity and mortality <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-6">
     [6]
    </xref>. Prematurity is increasing globally, with 5-18% incidence rates in Western countries and 60% in South Asian and African countries <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-7">
     [7]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-8">
     [8]
    </xref>. The major risk factors associated with preterm birth (PTB) are smoking, use of alcohol, use of illegal drugs, environmental factors, age of the mother and lack of care during pregnancy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-9">
     [9]
    </xref>. Several mechanisms initiate preterm labour syndromes such as uterine overdistension, infection or inflammation, stress, haemorrhage or ischemia, and immunologically mediated processes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-10">
     [10]
    </xref>. Preterm infants are at higher risk of developmental problems, health complications, and related mortality rather than healthy infants. Priorconization, other risk factors associated with preterm birth in patients are cervical length, and specimen volume. Preterm infants are at higher risk of getting complications such as poor body temperature regulation, impaired respiration, various infections, and difficulty in feeding <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-11">
     [11]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Over the past two decades, perinatal care has been improved, but still rates of preterm birth are increasing. Preterm infants are at higher risk of developmental problems, health complications, and related mortality rather than healthy infants The increasing prevalence rates of preterm births (PTM) and related complications emphasize the importance of diagnosis and suggest early treatment strategy for women at risk <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-12">
     [12]
    </xref>. Various diagnostic and therapeutic interventions exist for optimal management of PTB, including reduction of physical activity, smoking cessation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-13">
     [13]
    </xref>, antibiotic treatment of bacterial vaginosis and screening of periodontal disease <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-14">
     [14]
    </xref>. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement (TVS) of cervical length is considered as one of the most accurate techniques for prediction and management of women at PTB risk <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-15">
     [15]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Cervical insufficiency is defined as the dilation of the cervix prematurely in pregnancy. In other words, cervical insufficiency is the inability of the uterine cervix in the absence of symptoms or signs related to uterine contraction which causes an issue of retaining a pregnancy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-16">
     [16]
    </xref>. The common symptoms of cervical insufficiency are placenta abruption, premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and chorioamnionitis in the second trimester. Moreover, the risk factors linked with cervical insufficiency are obstetric lacerations, deficiencies in cervical elastin and collagen, conization, congenital mullerian and mechanical dilation of the cervix. It is reported that a structural deficiency in the cervix causes cervical insufficiency of the cervix. Preterm opening of the cervix raises a woman’s chance of preterm delivery significantly <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-17">
     [17]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>There are two main types of treatment for cervical insufficiency (CI); conservative and surgery. Cervical cerclage is a surgical treatment of cervical insufficiency, done by sewing the cervix opening temporarily with stitches <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-18">
     [18]
    </xref>. The cerclage is performed in the second trimester of pregnancy to enhance the capacity of the cervix for holding pregnancy that prevents preterm birth. Cervical cerclage (CC) treatments are of two types: emergency CC (ECC) and prophylactic CC (PCC) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-19">
     [19]
    </xref>. The methods commonly used for cervical cerclage are performed trans-vaginally or trans-abdominally. The point of consideration is that all treatment strategies are recommended after the diagnosis or previous history of painless cervical dilation in the second trimester of pregnancy. However, cervical insufficiency among women with no previous history can be diagnosed through ultrasonographical results of amniotic membrane bulging or short cervical length in the mid-second trimester <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-20">
     [20]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>When the cervix has not yet been obliterated or dilated, the cerclage procedure is referred to as prophylactic cerclage. Prophylactic cerclage cervix is performed between 12 to 14 weeks (about 3 months) of pregnancy due to indication of cervix insufficiency from medical history and ultrasonography <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-21">
     [21]
    </xref>. In patients who have had cervical insufficiency in the past, prophylactic cerclage may be recommended. In comparison to earlier, the emergency CC is performed after effacement and dilation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-22">
     [22]
    </xref>. While the conservative treatment strategies for cervical cerclage (CC) include pessary treatment, and expectant treatment. Additionally, Arabian cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone are effective preventive treatment strategies for women at PTB risk <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-23">
     [23]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Other studies showed positive outcomes by conservative management strategies such as progesterone therapy to treat short cervical length. Due to safety and efficacy, the conservative management is prioritized over emergency cerclage to treat amniotic membrane bulging among pregnant women to prevent severe complications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-24">
     [24]
    </xref>. On the other hand, severe complications are associated with emergency cerclage, having bulged amniotic membrane and these are PROM, cervical bleeding, and chorioamnionitis, even can lead to more foetal loss as compared to prophylactic cerclage. Moreover, there are still controversies related to the efficacy of emergency cerclage as compared to other treatment strategies for cervical insufficiencies among pregnant women <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-25">
     [25]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Several studies reported that prophylactic cervical cerclage decreases the prevalence of preterm birth as well as linked severe complications and increases the length of pregnancy effectively. The effective clinical outcomes of prophylactic cervical cerclage are reported in gestational age at delivery, length of hospital stay after surgery, live births, operative time, and preterm birth. One surgical procedure that works well to stop late foetal loss or recurrent abortion is cervical prophylactic cervical cerclage <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-11">
     [11]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-16">
     [16]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Since several studies have reported the efficacy of cervical cerclage either by prophylactic or emergency procedure. But very few studies have been conducted on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic cervical cerclage in pregnant women with cervical incompetency. Therefore, the recent meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic cervical cerclage in improving outcomes among pregnant women with cervical insufficiency.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Methods</title>
   <p>The “Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)" guidelines were followed for conducting a recent meta-analysis according to research aims <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-26">
     [26]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-28">
     [28]
    </xref>.</p>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Search Strategy</title>
    <p>The research papers related to the study’s aims “effectiveness of Prophylactic transvaginal cervical cerclage in improving clinical outcomes among pregnant women with cervical insufficiency” were extracted. We searched the three databases (Coachrane Library, PubMed, and MEDLINE) that were used for articles related to research aims. The timeline of research was set from January 2015 to January 2024. We used English language databases by using MeSH terms (Cervical Insufficiency [mh]) OR (Incompetence, Uterine Cervical) OR (Cervical Incompetence, Uterine) OR (Incompetent OR (Cervices, Incompetent) OR (Cervix, Incompetent) AND ((prophylactic cervical cerclage [mh]) OR (Uterine Cervix Cerclage) OR (Cervical Cerclage) OR (Cerclage of Cervix)).</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Inclusion Criteria</title>
    <p>In recent meta-analysis, the eligibility criteria applied after searching of research articles from above mentioned databases that assisted in screening of research article. We included only those articles in the recent meta-analysis that met the following criteria: 1) Research studies discussing the prophylactic cervical cerclage for cervical insufficiency; 2) Studies involved population of pregnant women with cervical insufficiency; 3) Studies involving the outcomes related to efficacy, and pregnancy outcomes; 4) Studies based on randomized controlled trials, pilot studies and cohort studies.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_3">
    <title>2.3. Exclusion Criteria</title>
    <p>The studies excluded have the following features as: 1) Studies discussing other types of therapeutic strategies; 2) Studies involving the population of pregnant women without cervical insufficiency, or patients complicated with other diseases; 3) Studies involving that included outcomes for twins, or higher-order multiple births; 4) Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, literature reviews, observational studies, scoping reviews, conferences, and letters.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_4">
    <title>2.4. Data Extraction and PICO Model</title>
    <p>For analysis, we extracted the information related to authors, year of study, country, study follow-up, sample size, type of intervention for cervical insufficiency, and primary outcomes from selected articles after the selection and screening of research articles. The research question was designed using the PICO model. It provided a PICO according to the above-mentioned research aims of the recent systematic review. For recent meta-analysis, the PICO question of was as follows:</p>
    <p>P—population of pregnant women with cervical insufficiency;</p>
    <p>I—Prophylactic cervical cerclage;</p>
    <p>C—Comparison of prophylactic cervical cerclage versus conservative methods;</p>
    <p>O—Outcomes (prolonged pregnancy duration, number of live births, number of preterm births and abortion).</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_5">
    <title>2.5. Primary Outcomes</title>
    <p>The primary outcomes of recent meta-analysis were prolonged pregnancy duration, number of live births, number preterm births, number of deliveries &gt; 34 weeks, and number of miscarriage rates.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_6">
    <title>2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment</title>
    <p>The methodological quality assessment of included studies in recent meta-analysis was evaluated by the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for retrospective cohort studies. All these non-randomized studies were examined on bias due to confounding, selection, categorization of treatment strategies, variation from intended treatment, missing data, measurement of efficacy or effects and reporting <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-29">
      [29]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_7">
    <title>2.7. Statistical Analysis</title>
    <p>Recent meta-analysis was conducted by using Review Manager 5.4.0 software. Our meta-analysis used both fixed effects and random effects depending on the heterogeneity. The chi-squared test, which can be represented as an I2 index or p-value, was used to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity of the results of included studies. When p &gt; 0.10 or I2 ≤ 50%, we concluded that there was no obvious heterogeneity in the included studies, and the fixed-effect model was applied. A random-effects model was applied otherwise. Odds risks (ORs) are used to represent variables, and 95% confidence intervals (95 CI’s) serve as the basis for all interval estimates. When p &lt; 0.05, differences were deemed statistically significant <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-30">
      [30]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-31">
      [31]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>3. Results</title>
   <sec id="s3_1">
    <title>3.1. Included Studies</title>
    <p>The selection and screening of research articles related to the study aim “Effectiveness of Prophylactic transvaginal cervical cerclage in improving clinical outcomes among pregnant women with cervical insufficiency” was performed by following the PRISMA guidelines in the recent meta-analysis. About 441 research articles were extracted from three electronic databases (PubMed: 398, Cochrane library: 11 and MEDLINE: 32) after applying the above-mentioned search strategy. Only 223 papers were screened, and 218 articles were excluded before on basis of duplication, unavailability of full text, and removal by automation) of screening. Among those, only 125 articles were assessed for eligibility criteria. Only 8 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis for a recent meta-analysis as mentioned in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 1. Flow chart of Screening and selection of included studies by using PRISMA Guidelines.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId13.jpeg?20240628030543" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_2">
    <title>3.2. Methodological Quality Assessment</title>
    <p>Six <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
      [38]
     </xref> out of eight included retrospective or pilot studies were graded as moderate risk of bias on basis of owning bias as given in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref> and bias of historical controls which are major confounding factors. Two studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
      [39]
     </xref> have low risk of bias, as authors chose lower age range in intervention group as compared to control.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table1">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
       Table 1
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-"></xref>Table 1. The ROBINS-I checklist for quality assessment of included studies.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Author &amp; year</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Type of study </p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias due to confounding</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias selection of participant</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias in categorization of intervention</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias due to deviation of intervention </p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias due to missing data</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Bias in measurement of outcomes </p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-33">
         [33]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Cimilli Şenocak et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study design</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">low</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
         [34]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Liu et al., 2018 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
         [35]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">He et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective design</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-36">
         [36]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Korb et al., 2017 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective cohort study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-37">
         [37]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Bartolo et al., 2017 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective cohort study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
         [38]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Okuhara et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Pilot study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
         [32]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Şimşek et al., 2021 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">High</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">low</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
         [39]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Ikechebelu et al., 2023 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Pilot study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.49%"><p style="text-align:center">low</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">Moderate</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.50%"><p style="text-align:center">moderate</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_3">
    <title>3.3. Characteristics of Included Studies</title>
    <p>The included articles for recent meta-analysis were published between 2015 and 2024. All studies were either retrospective cohort studies or pilot studies, as data was collected between intervals of time by medical or healthcare centres. About 1008 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency were analysed in a recent meta-analysis to fulfill research aims. To produce heterogeneity of results, the trials belong to 5 different countries: 2 in China <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
      [34]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
      [35]
     </xref>, 2 in France <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-36">
      [36]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
      [38]
     </xref>, 2 in Türkiye <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-33">
      [33]
     </xref>, 1 in Nigeria <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
      [39]
     </xref> and 1 in Japan <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. The strategies used to treat cervical insufficiency against prophylactic cervical cerclage were emergency cervical cerclage, therapeutic cervical cerclage, and conservative treatment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref>).</p>
    <table-wrap id="table2">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
       Table 2
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-"></xref>Table 2. The ROBINS-I checklist for quality characteristics of included students.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="7.76%"><p style="text-align:center">Author, year</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">Country</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">Population</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Sample size</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">Mean age</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Type of methodology</p></td> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Type of intervention for cervical insufficiency</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="39.38%" colspan="4"><p style="text-align:center">Primary findings</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Birth week or abortion rate</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Number of deliveries &lt; 37</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center">Prolongation of pregnancy (weeks)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm infants and Live births</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-33">
         [33]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">CİMİLLİ ŞENOCAK et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">Turkey</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">160 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cerclage: 113</p><p style="text-align:center">Therapeutic cerclage: 47</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">(31 ± 4)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study design</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">therapeutic cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">PCC: (33 - 50)</p><p style="text-align:center">22.5 ± 5.56</p><p style="text-align:center">TCC: (30 - 43)</p><p style="text-align:center">15.50 ± 2.76</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center">PCC: (18 - 4)</p><p style="text-align:center">TCC: (11 - 2)</p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
         [34]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Liu et al., 2018 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">China</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">69 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cerclage group: 30</p><p style="text-align:center">Therapeutic cerclage group: 39</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">(29.8 ± 6)</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">therapeutic cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Prolongation in delivery 19.5 ± 5.0 vs 12.0 ± 8.2</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center">12 (30)</p><p style="text-align:center"></p><p style="text-align:center">27 (39)</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center">PCC: 35.2 ± 5.5 and</p><p style="text-align:center">TCC: 31.7 ± 6.5 weeks</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm infants</p><p style="text-align:center">9 (30)</p><p style="text-align:center">15 (39)</p><p style="text-align:center">Live births 28 (30)</p><p style="text-align:center">27 (39)</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
         [35]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">He et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">China</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">160 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Early cervical cerclage: 71</p><p style="text-align:center">Emergency cerclage: 89</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">30.78 ± 4</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective design</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">therapeutic cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Abortion rates</p><p style="text-align:center">11 out of 71</p><p style="text-align:center">And</p><p style="text-align:center">55 out of 89</p><p style="text-align:center">Prolongation 6.44 ± 1.37 vs 6.82 ± 1.70</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm birth</p><p style="text-align:center">7 and 10</p><p style="text-align:center">Live birth</p><p style="text-align:center">52 out of 71</p><p style="text-align:center">and</p><p style="text-align:center">22 out of 89</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-36">
         [36]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Korb et al., 2017 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">France</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">205 pregnant women</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic Cervical cerclage: 97</p><p style="text-align:center">Emergency: 109</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">29.8 ± 4</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective cohort study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">emergency cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center">23 out of 97</p><p style="text-align:center">51 out of 109</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-37">
         [37]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Bartolo et al., 2017 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">France</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">38 pregnant women</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage: 24</p><p style="text-align:center">Shirodkar cerclage group: 14</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">28.78 ± 6</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective cohort study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">Shirodkar cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm birth: 6 out of 24</p><p style="text-align:center">1 out of 14</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
         [38]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Okuhara et al., 2022 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">Japan</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">281 pregnant women</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage: 71</p><p style="text-align:center">Conservative treatment: 210</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">29.8 ± 4</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Pilot study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage</p><p style="text-align:center">Conservative Treatment</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Prolongation</p><p style="text-align:center">3.75 ± 1.22</p><p style="text-align:center">vs 2.55 ± 0.27</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
         [32]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Şimşek et al., 2021 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">Turkey</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">75 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage: 48</p><p style="text-align:center">Emergency cervical cerclage: 27</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">29.4 ± 6</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Retrospective study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">Prophylactic cervical cerclage,</p><p style="text-align:center">Emergency cervical cerclage</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Mean gestational age 35.6 ± 4.5 in prophylactic cervical cerclage and 33.6 ± 5.9 in emergency group</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center">38 out of 48</p><p style="text-align:center">17 out of 27</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm birth</p><p style="text-align:center">9 out of 48</p><p style="text-align:center">9 out of 27</p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="7.76%">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
         [39]
        </xref><p style="text-align:center">Ikechebelu et al., 2023 </p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="5.83%"><p style="text-align:center">Nigeria</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.61%"><p style="text-align:center">20 pregnant women</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.62%"><p style="text-align:center">McDonald or prophylactic cervical cerclage: 10</p><p style="text-align:center">Triangular 3 bite: 10</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="6.76%"><p style="text-align:center">ages of 18 and 45 years</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.90%"><p style="text-align:center">Pilot study</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.13%"><p style="text-align:center">McDonald or prophylactic cervical cerclage,</p><p style="text-align:center">Triangular 3 bite</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Abortion</p><p style="text-align:center">1 out of 10</p><p style="text-align:center">1 out of 10</p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.07%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.84%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="10.07%"><p style="text-align:center">Preterm birth 2 out of 103 out of 10</p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_4">
    <title>3.4. Primary Outcomes</title>
    <p>Among 8 included studies, about 5 studies discussed the prophylactic cervical cerclage and its effects on prolongation of pregnancy after cervical cerclage treatment among pregnant women in recent meta-analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
      [35]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. There was significant difference prolongation of delivery weeks among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage as compared to other treatment strategies (Mean difference = 1.05; Cl: 0.81 to 1.29: p &gt; 0.00001) and heterogeneity was found (df = 4; I2 = 97%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig2" position="float">
     <label>Figure 2</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 2. Forest plot of prolongation of delivery weeks among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId14.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <p>Among 8 included studies, about 3 studies discussed the prophylactic cervical cerclage and its effects on number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks among pregnant women in recent meta-analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
      [34]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-36">
      [36]
     </xref>. There was a slight difference in number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks among prophylactic cervical cerclage and other interventions (OR = 0.59; Cl: 0.19 to 1.84: p &gt; 0.006,) and heterogeneity was found (df = 2; I2 = 80%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
      Figure 4
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Among 8 included studies, about 5 studies discussed the prophylactic cervical cerclage and its effects on number of preterm births among pregnant women in recent meta-analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
      [34]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-37">
      [37]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
      [39]
     </xref>. There was significant reduction in number of preterm births among prophylactic cervical cerclage group as compared to other interventions (OR = 0.73; Cl: 0.42 to 1.28: p &gt; 0.50,) and heterogeneity was found (df = 4; I2 = 0%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">
      Figure 5
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig3" position="float">
     <label>Figure 3</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 3. Forest plot of number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId15.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig4" position="float">
     <label>Figure 4</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 4. Funnel plot of number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId16.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig5" position="float">
     <label>Figure 5</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 5. Forest plot of number of preterm births among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId17.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig6" position="float">
     <label>Figure 6</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 6. Funnel plot of number of preterm births among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId18.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <p>Among 8 included studies, about 2 studies discussed the prophylactic cervical cerclage and its effects on number of live births among pregnant women in recent meta-analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
      [34]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
      [35]
     </xref>. There was significant improvement in number of live births among prophylactic cervical cerclage group as compared to other interventions (OR = 7.94; Cl: 4.42 to 15.28: p &gt; 0.74,) and heterogeneity was found (df = 1; I2 = 0%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">
      Figure 7
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">
      Figure 8
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig7" position="float">
     <label>Figure 7</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 7. Forest plot of number of live births among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId19.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig8" position="float">
     <label>Figure 8</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 8. Funnel plot of number of live births among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId20.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig9" position="float">
     <label>Figure 9</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 9. Forest plot of number of abortions among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId21.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig10" position="float">
     <label>Figure 10</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 10. Funnel plot of number of abortions among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage and other treatment.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/1320632-rId22.jpeg?20240628030544" />
    </fig>
    <p>Among 8 included studies, about 2 studies discussed the prophylactic cervical cerclage and its effects on number of abortions among pregnant women in recent meta-analysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
      [35]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
      [39]
     </xref>. There was slight reduction in number of abortions among prophylactic cervical cerclage group as compared to other interventions (OR = 0.21; Cl: 0.42 to 1.28: p &gt; 0.16) and heterogeneity was found (df = 1; I2 = 50%), as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">
      Figure 9
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig10">
      Figure 10
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>4. Discussion</title>
   <p>The recent meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of Prophylactic or early or elective cervical cerclage in comparison to other treatments for cervical insufficiency among the pregnant women. Other standard therapeutic strategies against prophylactic cervical cerclage were conservative treatment, and emergency or therapeutic cervical cerclage to treat cervical incompetence. The findings reported that prophylactic cervical cerclage resulted in prolonged pregnancy duration after delivery in weeks as compared to emergency or therapeutic cervical cerclage, as evaluated by mean difference among intervention and placebo groups. Other outcomes such as low rates of preterm births <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
     [32]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
     [34]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
     [35]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-37">
     [37]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
     [39]
    </xref>, number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-32">
     [32]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-34">
     [34]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-36">
     [36]
    </xref> and abortion rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-35">
     [35]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-39">
     [39]
    </xref> among those pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage as compared to conservative treatments or emergency cervical cerclage. Furthermore, the mean difference in prolongation of delivery weeks (Mean difference = 1.05; Cl: 0.81 to 1.29: p &gt; 0.00001), number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks (OR = 0.59; Cl: 0.19 to 1.84: p &gt; 0.006), number of preterm births (OR = 0.73; Cl: 0.42 to 1.28: p &gt; 0.50) number of live births (OR = 7.94; Cl: 4.42 to 15.28: p &gt; 0.74) in number of abortions (OR = 0.21; Cl: 0.42 to 1.28: p &gt; 0.16) among pregnant women receiving prophylactic cervical cerclage as compared to other treatment strategies. Additionally, the rates of live births among prophylactic cervical cerclage were higher than other interventions. Overall, recent meta-analysis evaluated higher success rates by implementation of prophylactic cervical intervention due to earlier indications of cervical insufficiency and its diagnosis to prevent poor pregnancy related outcomes. The prophylactic cervical cerclage is recommended also on basis of previous abortion history or painless dilation, leading to preterm births or abortions among pregnant women <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-22">
     [22]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Up to 1% of maternal populations may have cervical insufficiency, consequently it’s a condition that occurs frequently enough that it is advised to address that the issues with its management were beyond due. Cervical cerclage has been a part of obstetric practice for more than a century, but its purpose and appropriate uses are still unclear and up for debate, with significant variances in application across various clinical contexts <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-40">
     [40]
    </xref>. The uncertainty around the identification of individuals who will genuinely benefit from cerclage (i.e., those with actual elevated risk of preterm delivery or cervical insufficiency) contributes to the lack of clarity surrounding the procedure. Cervical directing, shortening, for and overt dilatation are signs in the first trimester of pregnancy that may point to probable cervical insufficiency <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-41">
     [41]
    </xref>. Even without it, A cervical length measured by ultrasonography that is less than 25 mm before 27 weeks of pregnancy is known as funnelling, and it raises the risk of miscarriage or preterm delivery. Cervical insufficiency must be screened for, or its likelihood predicted in the absence of a valid diagnostic test. The foundation of this procedure is the determination and acknowledgement of significant risk factors in the woman’s medical history and the index pregnancy. Preterm births or losses in the second trimester of pregnancies are the most common indicators in the patient’s medical history that point to a possible danger. Yet it should be highlighted that there may occasionally be a range among preterm and cervical insufficiency <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-24">
     [24]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>In others, birth and labour are two separate and unconnected procedures. Cervical insufficiency risk is not always indicated by previous experience of preterm labour or a determination of risk factors for preterm birth. Alfirevic <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-42">
     [42]
    </xref> reported the study to evaluate the risk of cervical insufficiency and recommendation of cervical insufficiency or other conservative treatments such as progesterone to avoid preterm birth. The results of this investigation are a little contradictory, showing that while cerclage reduces the rates of preterm births statistically significantly, it does not influence maternal death or morbidity. Additionally, cerclage was linked to higher rates of maternal illness and Caesarean sections, the latter of which may potentially be responsible for a non-significant rise in respiratory morbidity among babies born to women who had cerclages.</p>
   <p>Liu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-43">
     [43]
    </xref> conducted an update meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate efficacy of prophylactic cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies by comparing 8578 non cerclage and 726 patients with earlier cervical cerclage. The findings reported that prophylactic cervical cerclage was linked to a significant decrease in PTB, nevertheless, only in twin pregnancies with a cervical length less than 15 mm. In twin pregnancies, there is still conflicting evidence about the safety and efficacy of cervical cerclage on mother and newborn outcomes. Another study by Belej-Rak <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-44">
     [44]
    </xref> evaluated effectiveness of prophylactic cervical cerclage on the basis of sonographic results of cervix shortness through 6 studies. Cerclage had no statistically significant impact on the incidence of preterm labour, newborn mortality or complications, gestational age at birth, or length of labour. Preterm delivery was defined as those occurring at 37, 34, 32, and 28 weeks of gestation. With cerclage, birth weight was substantially higher than without. Cervical cerclage is not recommended for a short cervix identified sonographically, according to the current data. It will take a randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether this technique would lessen unfavourable outcomes for newborns. Li et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-45">
     [45]
    </xref> estimated the efficacy of prophylactic cervical cerclage in extending the prolongation of pregnancy and reducing risk preterm births or abortion. The findings of meta-analysis showed that in doublets with a cervical length of less than 15 mm or a dilated cervix larger than 10 mm, cerclage implantation prolongs pregnancy and reduces the risk of premature birth. According to recent research, the advantages of two pregnancies with normal cervical length and history- or twins alone-indicated cerclage are less definite. Drakeley et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-26">
     [26]
    </xref> conducted the research on evaluation of efficacy of prophylactic cervical cerclage in improving outcomes among pregnant women with cervical insufficiency. About 2175 pregnant women from six trials were analysed through pooled analysis. The findings reported that prophylactic cerclage is not beneficial in avoiding premature delivery in women who are at low or medium risk of miscarrying a second child. Moreover, the use of cerclage in women whose ultrasounds show a short cervix is still unclear, nevertheless. Another meta-analysis conducted by Wei and Wang <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-27">
     [27]
    </xref> reported the efficacy of emergency cervical cerclage in terms of improvements in neonatal survival rates and gestational period among pregnant women with cervical insufficiency as compared to expectant treatment. The underlying principle accounting for clinical role of prophylactic cervical cerclage among pregnant women in comparison to other treatment strategies for cervical insufficiency was conducted for the first time. Several previous studies reported combined effects of prophylactic cervical cerclage and emergency cervical cerclage against conservative methods <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-42">
     [42]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-43">
     [43]
    </xref>. Now, it is need of hour to manage the cervical insufficiency before 28 weeks of pregnancy by proper diagnosis and studying underlying pathophysiology of cervical insufficiency among pregnant women. Growing knowledge of pathophysiology offers an additional rationale for investigating into cerclage’s potential application in the treatment of cervical insufficiency <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.134219-46">
     [46]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The recent meta-analysis has used more recent research to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic cervical cerclage, as it is done on basis of diagnosis of dilation and shorter cervical length, not after 28th week of gestation. We used ROBINS-I to evaluate the methodological risk of bias to ensure quality of including studies. The publication bias of included studies was robust which ensured quality of recent meta-analysis. We conducted pooled analysis of rates of preterm births, live births, number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks. However, there are few limitations in recent meta-analysis which should be considered. Firstly, a limited number of studies were available on comparison of prophylactic’s efficacy with other treatment strategies. Secondly all studies were retrospective studies or non-randomized controlled trials, as it should include randomized controlled trial to produce heterogeneity. Even though we used stringent inclusion and exclusion standards, it’s probable that we overlooked some additional biological elements that might have impacted conception result. Fourth, we limited the scope of our analysis to publications that were composed in English.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>5. Conclusion</title>
   <p>In conclusion, a recent meta-analysis suggested that prophylactic cervical cerclage reduces the rates of preterm birth, abortion rates, number of deliveries &gt; 37 weeks and other complications as compared to the other cervical cerclage types and conservative treatments. Additionally, the rates of live births and prolongation in gestational weeks were increased after prophylactic cervical cerclage as compared to other strategies among pregnant women with cervical incompetence. Further studies should be conducted with a larger sample size to evaluate other clinical outcomes after the implication of prophylactic cerclage as compared to other treatment strategies to treat cervical insufficiency.</p>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     World Health Organization (2022) Preterm Birth. &gt;https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Beck, S., Wojdyla, D., Say, L., Pilar Bertran, A., Meraldi, M., Harris Requejo, J., et al. (2010) The Worldwide Incidence of Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review of Maternal Mortality and Morbidity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 31-38. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.08.062554
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Saigal, S. and Doyle, L.W. (2008) An Overview of Mortality and Sequelae of Preterm Birth from Infancy to Adulthood. The Lancet, 371, 261-269. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60136-1
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ohuma, E.O., Moller, A., Bradley, E., Chakwera, S., Hussain-Alkhateeb, L., Lewin, A., et al. (2023) National, Regional, and Global Estimates of Preterm Birth in 2020, with Trends from 2010: A Systematic Analysis. The Lancet, 402, 1261-1271. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00878-4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Christianson, A., Howson, C.P. and Modell, B. (2006) March of Dimes Global Report on Birth Defects March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation 2006. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Govindaswami, B., Jegatheesan, P., Nudelman, M. and Narasimhan, S.R. (2018) Prevention of Prematurity. Clinics in Perinatology, 45, 579-595. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2018.05.013
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Goldenberg, R.L., Culhane, J.F., Iams, J.D. and Romero, R. (2008) Epidemiology and Causes of Preterm Birth. The Lancet, 371, 75-84. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60074-4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Blencowe, H., Cousens, S., Oestergaard, M.Z., Chou, D., Moller, A., Narwal, R., et al. (2012) National, Regional, and Worldwide Estimates of Preterm Birth Rates in the Year 2010 with Time Trends since 1990 for Selected Countries: A Systematic Analysis and Implications. The Lancet, 379, 2162-2172. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60820-4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     World Health Organization (2015) WHO Recommendations on Interventions to Improve Preterm Birth Outcomes. &gt;https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241508988 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Romero, R., Espinoza, J., Kusanovic, J., Gotsch, F., Hassan, S., Erez, O., et al. (2006) The Preterm Parturition Syndrome. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics&amp;Gynaecology, 113, 17-42. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01120.x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Celik, E., To, M., Gajewska, K., Smith, G.C.S. and Nicolaides, K.H. (2008) Cervical Length and Obstetric History Predict Spontaneous Preterm Birth: Development and Validation of a Model to Provide Individualized Risk Assessment. Ultrasound in Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 31, 549-554. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5333
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Owen, J. (2001) Mid-trimester Endovaginal Sonography in Women at High Risk for Spontaneous Preterm Birth. JAMA, 286, 1340-1348. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.11.1340
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Dodd, J.M., Jones, L., Flenady, V., Cincotta, R. and Crowther, C.A. (2013) Prenatal Administration of Progesterone for Preventing Preterm Birth in Women Considered to Be at Risk of Preterm Birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 7, CD004947. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004947.pub3
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Romero, R., Nicolaides, K., Conde-Agudelo, A., Tabor, A., O’Brien, J.M., Cetingoz, E., et al. (2012) Vaginal Progesterone in Women with an Asymptomatic Sonographic Short Cervix in the Midtrimester Decreases Preterm Delivery and Neonatal Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Individual Patient Data. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 206, 124.E1-124.E19. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.003
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Brown, R., Gagnon, R. and Delisle, M. (2019) No. 373-Cervical Insufficiency and Cervical Cerclage. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 41, 233-247. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2018.08.009
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sun, W., Zhang, L. and Li, Y. (2019) Operative Timing of Cervical Cerclage in Patients with Cervical Insufficiency during Pregnancy and Its Effect on Pregnancy Outcome. Maternal&amp;Child Health Care of China, 34, 2707-2709.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hassan, S.S., Romero, R., Vidyadhari, D., Fusey, S., Baxter, J.K., Khandelwal, M., et al. (2011) Vaginal Progesterone Reduces the Rate of Preterm Birth in Women with a Sonographic Short Cervix: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐ Controlled Trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 38, 18-31. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.9017
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Romero, R., Conde-Agudelo, A., Da Fonseca, E., O’Brien, J.M., Cetingoz, E., Creasy, G.W., et al. (2018) Vaginal Progesterone for Preventing Preterm Birth and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Singleton Gestations with a Short Cervix: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 218, 161-180. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.576
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Aoki, S., Ohnuma, E., Kurasawa, K., Okuda, M., Takahashi, T. and Hirahara, F. (2013) Emergency Cerclage versus Expectant Management for Prolapsed Fetal Membranes: A Retrospective, Comparative Study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 40, 381-386. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12207
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ragab, A. and Mesbah, Y. (2015) To Do or Not to Do Emergency Cervical Cerclage (A Rescue Stitch) at 24-28 Weeks Gestation in Addition to Progesterone for Patients Coming Early in Labor? A Prospective Randomized Trial for Efficacy and Safety. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 292, 1255-1260. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3772-4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Romero, R., Yeo, L., Miranda, J., Hassan, S.S., Conde-Agudelo, A. and Chaiworapongsa, T. (2013) A Blueprint for the Prevention of Preterm Birth: Vaginal Progesterone in Women with a Short Cervix. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 41, 27-44. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2012-0272
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Odibo, A., Berghella, V., To, M., Rust, O., Althuisius, S. and Nicolaides, K. (2007) Shirodkar versus Mcdonald Cerclage for the Prevention of Preterm Birth in Women with Short Cervical Length. American Journal of Perinatology, 24, 055-060. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-958165
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Brown, J.A., Pearson, A.W., Veillon, E.W., Rust, O.A., Chauhan, S.P., Magann, E.F. and Morrison, J.C. (2011) History-or Ultrasound-Based Cerclage Placement and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 56, 385-392.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Conde-Agudelo, A., Romero, R., Nicolaides, K., Chaiworapongsa, T., O’Brien, J.M., Cetingoz, E., et al. (2013) Vaginal Progesterone vs Cervical Cerclage for the Prevention of Preterm Birth in Women with a Sonographic Short Cervix, Previous Preterm Birth, and Singleton Gestation: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison Metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 208, 42.E1-42.E18. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.877
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gundabattula, S.R., Marakani, L.R., Dasari, S., Surampudi, K., Pochiraju, M. and Nirmalan, P.K. (2013) Outcomes of Pregnancy in Women Who Had Rescue Cerclage for Cervical Insufficiency: A Single‐Center Retrospective Study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39, 1293-1300. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12059
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Drakeley, A.J., Roberts, D. and Alfirevic, Z. (2003) Cervical Cerclage for Prevention of Preterm Delivery. Obstetrics&amp;Gynecology, 102, 621-627. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200309000-00035
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wei, Y. and Wang, S. (2023) Comparison of Emergency Cervical Cerclage and Expectant Treatment in Cervical Insufficiency in Singleton Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE, 18, e0278342. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278342
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, Article ID: 105906. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sterne, J.A., Hernán, M.A., Reeves, B.C., Savović, J., Berkman, N.D., Viswanathan, M., et al. (2016) ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ, 355, i4919. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref30">
    <label>30</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sarkis-Onofre, R., Catalá-López, F., Aromataris, E. and Lockwood, C. (2021) How to Properly Use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews, 10, Article No. 117. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref31">
    <label>31</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Campbell, M., McKenzie, J.E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S.V., Brennan, S.E., Ellis, S., et al. (2020) Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) in Systematic Reviews: Reporting Guideline. BMJ, 368, L6890. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref32">
    <label>32</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yüksel Şimşek, S., Şimşek, E., Doğan Durdağ, G., Alemdaroğlu, S., Baran, Ş.Y. and Kalaycı, H. (2021) Prevention of Preterm Delivery by Cervical Cerclage; A Comparison of Prophylactic and Emergency Procedures. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 22, 22-28. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2020.2019.0183
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref33">
    <label>33</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Cimilli Senocak, G.N. (2022) Comparison of Therapeutic and Prophylactic Cervical Cerclages and Their Results. Eastern Journal of Medicine, 27, 591-595. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5505/ejm.2022.67045
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref34">
    <label>34</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Liu, Y., Ke, Z., Liao, W., Chen, H., Wei, S., Lai, X., et al. (2018) Pregnancy Outcomes and Superiorities of Prophylactic Cervical Cerclage and Therapeutic Cervical Cerclage in Cervical Insufficiency Pregnant Women. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 297, 1503-1508. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4766-9
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref35">
    <label>35</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     He, D. and Zhao, D. (2022) Analysis of the Timing of Cervical Cerclage Treatment in Pregnant Women with Cervical Insufficiency and the Effect on Pregnancy Outcome. Emergency Medicine International, 2022, Article ID: 8340009. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8340009
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref36">
    <label>36</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Korb, D., Marzouk, P., Deu, J., Oury, J.F. and Sibony, O. (2017) Effectiveness of Elective Cervical Cerclage According to Obstetric History. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 46, 53-59. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.09.006
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref37">
    <label>37</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bartolo, S., Garabedian, C., Deruelle, P., Debarge, V., Ducloy-Bouthors, A. and Subtil, D. (2017) Evaluation of a New Technique of Prophylactic Cervical Cerclage Simplified from the Shirodkar Cerclage: A Pilot Study. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 46, 343-347. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.02.003
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref38">
    <label>38</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Okuhara, M., Tsuda, H., Nishiko, Y., Fuma, K., Kuribayashi, M., Tezuka, A., et al. (2021) The Efficacy of Therapeutic Cervical Cerclage in Singleton Pregnancies: A Retrospective Study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal&amp;Neonatal Medicine, 35, 6267-6271. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1910663
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref39">
    <label>39</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ikechebelu, J., Dim, C., Okpala, B., Eleje, G., Joe-Ikechebelu, N., Echezona, D., et al. (2023) Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes of Triangular 3-Bites and Mcdonald Techniques of Cervical Cerclage in Women with Cervical Insufficiency: A Pilot Study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 26, 630-635. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_830_22
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref40">
    <label>40</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Althuisius, S.M., Dekker, G.A., Hummel, P. and van Geijn, H.P. (2003) Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial: Emergency Cerclage with Bed Rest versus Bed Rest Alone. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 907-910. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00718-x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref41">
    <label>41</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wang, S., Ma, L., Huang, S., Liang, L. and Zhang, J. (2016) Role of Cervical Cerclage and Vaginal Progesterone in the Treatment of Cervical Incompetence with/without Preterm Birth History. Chinese Medical Journal, 129, 2670-2675. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.193451
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref42">
    <label>42</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Shim, E.J., Kim, H.J., Kim, I.Y., Oh, K.Y., Yang, Y.S. and Jin, C.H. (2020) Outcomes of Prophylactic and Emergency Cerclage versus Expectant Management for Cervical Insufficiency: A Single-Center Retrospective, Comparative Study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 47, 262-267. &gt;https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.02.5200
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref43">
    <label>43</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Belej-Rak, T., Okun, N., Windrim, R., Ross, S. and Hannah, M.E. (2003) Effectiveness of Cervical Cerclage for a Sonographically Shortened Cervix: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 1679-1687. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(03)00871-8
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref44">
    <label>44</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Alfirevic, Z., Stampalija, T., Roberts, D. and Jorgensen, A.L. (2012) Cervical Stitch (Cerclage) for Preventing Preterm Birth in Singleton Pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD008991. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008991.pub2
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref45">
    <label>45</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Odibo, A.O., Farrell, C., Macones, G.A. and Berghella, V. (2003) Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Risk of Preterm Birth in Women Receiving Cervical Cerclage. Journal of Perinatology, 23, 664-667. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211004
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.134219-ref46">
    <label>46</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Abdel-Aleem, H., Shaaban, O.M. and Abdel-Aleem, M.A. (2010) Cervical Pessary for Preventing Preterm Birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 5, CD007873. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007873.pub2
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>