Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Premature Birth | Protocol

McDonald versus Shirodkar cerclage technique in women requiring a prophylactic cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Authors: Ashad Issah, Rosanna Diacci, Kimberley P. Williams, Anne-Marie Aubin, Liam McAuliffe, Jason Phung, Carol Wang, Panos Maouris, Craig E. Pennell

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of death in children under five years. Spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) is the major cause of preterm delivery. The key risk factors for SPTB are women who have a short cervix and women who have had previous preterm birth. Cervical cerclage has been used for several decades and has shown to decrease rates of preterm birth. The most commonly used cerclage techniques were described by Shirodkar and McDonald, with no current consensus on the preferred technique. The objective of this review is to determine and compare the effectiveness of both techniques.

Methods

Studies will be sourced from six electronic databases, as well as from experts in the field, reference lists, and grey literature. Eligible studies will include pregnant women, with a singleton or twin pregnancy, requiring a cervical cerclage, using either the Shirodkar or McDonald technique and run comparative analyses between the two techniques. Randomized control trials (RCT)s, non-randomized control trials, and cohort studies will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will conduct study screening at abstract and full-text level, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies will be resolved by a consensus third reviewer if required. Fixed-effects or random-effects models will be used where appropriate to synthesize results. Alternative synthesis methods will be investigated in instances where a meta-analysis is not appropriate, such as summarizing effect estimates, combining P values, vote counting based on direction of effect, or synthesis in narrative form.

Discussion

This review will synthesize the evidence on both the Shirodkar and McDonald cerclage method, and will help clinicians and health services to determine and deliver best practice antenatal care that has the potential to make an impact on preterm birth.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO on 25 of May, 2020 with registration number CRD42020177386
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organisation. WHO: recommended definitions terminology format for statistical tables related to the perinatal period use of a new certificate for cause of perinatal deaths. Modifications recommended by FIGO as amended October 14, 1976. AOGS. 1977;56:247–53. World Health Organisation. WHO: recommended definitions terminology format for statistical tables related to the perinatal period use of a new certificate for cause of perinatal deaths. Modifications recommended by FIGO as amended October 14, 1976. AOGS. 1977;56:247–53.
2.
go back to reference Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller A-B, Narwal R, et al. 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. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–72.CrossRef Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller A-B, Narwal R, et al. 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. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–72.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Chu Y, Perin J, Zhu J, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet. 2016;388(10063):3027–35.CrossRef Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Chu Y, Perin J, Zhu J, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet. 2016;388(10063):3027–35.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ward RM, Beachy JC. Neonatal complications following preterm birth. BJOG. 2003;110:8–16.CrossRef Ward RM, Beachy JC. Neonatal complications following preterm birth. BJOG. 2003;110:8–16.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84.CrossRef Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. New Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–73.CrossRef Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. New Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–73.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mercer BM, Goldenberg RL, Moawad AH, Meis PJ, Iams JD, Das AF, et al. The preterm prediction study: effect of gestational age and cause of preterm birth on subsequent obstetric outcome. AJOG. 1999;181(5):1216–21.CrossRef Mercer BM, Goldenberg RL, Moawad AH, Meis PJ, Iams JD, Das AF, et al. The preterm prediction study: effect of gestational age and cause of preterm birth on subsequent obstetric outcome. AJOG. 1999;181(5):1216–21.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Berghella V, Rafael TJ, Szychowski JM, Rust OA, Owen J. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography in women with singleton gestations and previous preterm birth: a meta-analysis. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2011;117(3):663–71.CrossRef Berghella V, Rafael TJ, Szychowski JM, Rust OA, Owen J. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography in women with singleton gestations and previous preterm birth: a meta-analysis. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2011;117(3):663–71.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage, Macnaughton M, Chalmers I, Dubowitz V, Dunn P, Grant A, et al. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage. BJOG. 1993;100(6):516–23.CrossRef MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage, Macnaughton M, Chalmers I, Dubowitz V, Dunn P, Grant A, et al. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage. BJOG. 1993;100(6):516–23.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Jones H, RJ. Te Lindes Operative Gynecology: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2015. Jones H, RJ. Te Lindes Operative Gynecology: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2015.
11.
go back to reference McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. BJOG. 1957;64(3):346–50.CrossRef McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. BJOG. 1957;64(3):346–50.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Shirodkar V. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic. 1955;52:299–300. Shirodkar V. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic. 1955;52:299–300.
13.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRef Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook.
15.
go back to reference Endnote X9. Clarivate Analytics. Philadelphia, United States: Thomson Reuters; 2019. Endnote X9. Clarivate Analytics. Philadelphia, United States: Thomson Reuters; 2019.
16.
go back to reference Covidence systematic review software Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; [Available from: www.covidence.org]. Accessed 13 Mar 2020. Covidence systematic review software Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; [Available from: www.​covidence.​org]. Accessed 13 Mar 2020.
17.
go back to reference Review Manager (RevMan). [Computer program]. Copenhagen The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014. Review Manager (RevMan). [Computer program]. Copenhagen The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
18.
go back to reference Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn. Classic Papers in Critical Care. 1952;32(449):97. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn. Classic Papers in Critical Care. 1952;32(449):97.
19.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.CrossRef Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:1–7. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:1–7.
22.
go back to reference Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook.
Metadata
Title
McDonald versus Shirodkar cerclage technique in women requiring a prophylactic cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Authors
Ashad Issah
Rosanna Diacci
Kimberley P. Williams
Anne-Marie Aubin
Liam McAuliffe
Jason Phung
Carol Wang
Panos Maouris
Craig E. Pennell
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Premature Birth
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01679-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue