Chinese Medical E-ournals Database
Adv Search
中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)

Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition) ›› 2019, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (03): 253 -261. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.03.004

Special Issue: ； ；

Original Article

Efficacy and safety of cervical pessaries for preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancy: a systematic review

Tingting Xu1, Zhiyi Zhou1, Na Liu1, Chunyan Deng1, Guiqiong Huang1, Xiaodong Wang1, Haiyan Yu1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2018-12-18 Revised:2019-05-08 Published:2019-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Haiyan Yu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Yu Haiyan, Email:
  • Supported by:
    Key Research and Development Project of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province(2018FZ0041); Project of Academic and Technical Leader Training in Sichuan Province([2017]919-25)
HTML ( ) PDF ( )
Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cervical pessaries in the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy with short cervical length (CL).

Methods

Based on the principles and methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, we searched the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid-Medline, American College of Physicians (ACP), China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, and Wanfang databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate efficacy and safety of cervical pessaries in the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy with short CL from the date of database inception to January 2018. Related conference papers and dissertations were also searched manually. The methodological quality and data extraction of the included studies were assessed independently by two reviewers followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. The heterogeneity of the treatment was evaluated with the I2 statistic. RR value and its 95%CI were computed for dichotomous data and were combined with a fixed-effects model (I2<50%) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. A random-effects model was used to analyze the results (with values of I2>50%).

Results

Five RCTs, involving 2 465 twin pregnancies and 827 of them combined with short CL that pertained to pessary use, met the inclusion criteria. Treatment with a pessary was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR=0.73, 95%CI: 0.53-1.00, P=0.05). There were higher incidences of vaginal discharge (RR=3.07, 95%CI: 1.29-7.30, P=0.01) and retinopathy of prematurity(ROP) (RR=3.85, 95%CI: 1.19-12.45, P=0.02) in cervical pessary group. No significant differences were found between pessary group and control group among other major maternal and neonatal outcomes. A subgroup analysis of twin pregnancies associated with short CL by different CL values (CL≤ 25 mm or <38 mm) was conducted. Treatment with a pessary was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of preterm birth< 37 gestational weeks (RR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.69-0.94, P=0.007), neonatal sepsis (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.30-0.86, P=0.01) and neonatal necrotising enterocolitis (RR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.20-0.95, P=0.04) in twin pregnancy with CL<38 mm. In twin pregnancy with CL ≤25 mm, no significant difference was found between pessary group and control group among major maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Conclusions

These results suggest that cervical pessary in the twin pregnancy is not likely to facilitate the prevention of PTB, but can significantly reduce the rate of NICU. It seems that cervical pessary has much more protective efficacy in twin pregnancy with a cervical length <38 mm.

Key words: Pessaries, Cervix uteri, Pregnancy trimester, second, Twin pregnancy, Cervical length measurement, Systematic review, Pregnancy outcome, Pregnant women
图1 文献筛选流程图
表1 纳入文献基本特征
第一作者，文献发表年 子宫颈托类型 纳入/排除标准 子宫颈托组 对照组 主要/次要指标 不良反应（子宫颈托vs对照组） 随访率[%（n/n’）]
所有双胎妊娠孕妇/对应胎儿样本量 双胎妊娠合并宫颈缩短/对应胎儿样本量 所有双胎妊娠孕妇/对应胎儿样本量 双胎妊娠合并宫颈缩短/对应胎儿样本量
Goya, 2016[13] Arabin ①纳入标准：孕龄为18~22孕周，双胎妊娠合并CL≤25 mm并且无明显临床症状；②排除标准：胎儿先天性异常，规律宫缩，引导活动性出血，前置胎盘，PPROM，宫颈活组织检查或者宫颈环扎史 68/136 68/136 66/130a 66/130a ①主要指标：早产儿出生胎龄<34周；②次要指标：新生儿出生体重、死亡，胎儿宫内死亡，孕妇阴道排液、引导感染等 阴道排液：100% vs 53%，阴道流血：4.4% vs 4.5%；子宫颈托重置：16.2% vs 0，子宫颈托替换：2.9% vs 0 97.8（134/137）
Berghella, 2017[15] Bioteque ①纳入标准：孕龄为18~27+6孕周，双胎妊娠合并CL≤30 mm并且无明显临床症状；②排除标准：双胎，TTTS，sIUGR，前置胎盘 23/46 23/46 23/46 23/46 ①主要指标：早产儿出生胎龄<34周；②次要指标：早产儿胎龄<37周、<32周、<28周或者<24周，发生SPB时胎龄<37周、<34周、<28周或者<24周，早产儿分娩孕周、出生体重，孕妇绒毛膜羊膜炎，泌尿生殖系统感染，剖宫产分娩 阴道排液：83% vs 43% 100.0（46/46）
Liem, 2013[16] Arabin ①纳入标准：孕龄为16~20孕周，双胎妊娠合并CL<38 mm；②排除标准：胎儿具有严重先天畸形，胎儿死亡，TTTS，前置胎盘 401/802 78/156 407/814 55/110 ①主要指标：死胎、新生儿脑白质软化、重度RDS、IVH、NEC、BPD、脓毒症、新生儿死亡；②次要指标：早产儿出生胎龄<32周或者<37周、NICU治疗、住院天数、产妇死亡率 阴道排液：26% vs 0，疼痛：4% vs <1%，阴道排液伴疼痛：3% vs 0，发热或感染：2% vs 1% 99.4（808/813）
Nicolaides, 2016[17] Arabin ①纳入标准：孕龄为20+1~24+6孕周，双胎妊娠合并CL<25 mm并且无明显临床症状；②排除标准：孕妇年龄<16岁，胎儿死亡，胎儿严重先天畸形，TTTS，sIUGR，宫颈环扎，规律宫缩，既往PROM史 588/1 176 106/212 589/1 178 108/216 ①主要指标：发生SPB时胎龄<34周②次要指标：早产儿围生期死亡、脑室出血、RDS、ROP、NEC、NICU治疗治疗等 阴道排液：10.9% vs 10.2%，盆腔不适：1.2% vs 1.5% 99.7（1 177/1 180）
Dang, 2018[23] Arabin ①纳入标准：孕龄为16~22孕周，双胎妊娠合并CL<38 mm并且无明显临床症状；②排除标准：既往宫颈锥切或者宫颈环扎史，早产史，TTTS，死胎或胎儿先天畸形，急性阴道炎，PROM 150/300 150/300 15/300 150/300 ①主要指标：早产儿出生胎龄<34周；②次要指标：早产出生胎龄<37周或者<28周、新生儿出生体重、围生期胎儿/新生儿死亡、NICU治疗、RDS、IVH、NEC、败血症，孕妇分娩孕龄、阴道流液 阴道排液：69.3% vs 24% 100.0（300/300）
图2 文献的偏倚风险评估(图2A：纳入试验的偏倚风险分析图；图2B纳入试验的偏倚风险总结)
表2 双胎妊娠的妊娠结局评价
妊娠结局 RCT数量(篇) 双胎孕妇例数/分娩新生儿例数 统计学异质性 Meta分析结果
子宫颈托组 对照组 χ2值 P值 I2(%) RR值(95%CI) P值
双胎孕妇 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 分娩时孕龄<37孕周 3 314/574 343/580 2.63 0.27 24 0.92(0.84～1.02) 0.13
? 分娩时孕龄<34孕周 4 143/829 160/828 8.72 0.03 66 0.80(0.53～1.21) 0.28
? 分娩时孕龄<32孕周 2 93/989 102/996 0.29 0.59 0 0.92(0.70～1.20) 0.53
? 分娩时孕龄<28孕周 4 48/1 162 47/1 169 1.36 0.71 0 1.03(0.69～1.52) 0.89
? SPB时孕龄<37孕周 2 59/91 60/89 0.03 0.86 0 0.96(0.78～1.18) 0.70
? SPB时孕龄<34孕周 3 98/679 109/678 7.37 0.03 73 0.77(0.41～1.44) 0.41
? SPB时胎龄<28孕周 2 8/91 13/89 0.96 0.33 0 0.60(0.26～1.38) 0.23
? PPROM 3 40/492 46/496 3.32 0.19 40 0.88(0.59～1.31) 0.53
? 阴道排液 4 295/642 81/646 47.89 <0.001 94 3.07(1.29～7.30) 0.01
? 剖宫产术分娩 3 251/492 224/496 2.74 0.25 27 1.13(0.99～1.29) 0.06
? 绒毛膜羊膜炎 2 15/469 16/473 0 0.98 0 0.95(0.47～1.89) 0.88
胎儿/新生儿 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 新生儿败血症 5 111/2 420 132/2 430 5.84 0.21 32 0.84(0.66～1.08) 0.18
? RDS 5 196/2 420 196/2 430 6.50 0.16 38 1.00(0.83～1.21) 0.97
? IVH 5 31/2 420 29/2 430 2.97 0.56 0 1.07(0.65～1.76) 0.79
? 糖皮质激素促胎肺成熟 2 119/469 144/473 0.10 0.75 0 0.83(0.68～1.02) 0.08
? NEC 5 25/2 420 33/2 430 4.82 0.31 17 0.77(0.47～1.28) 0.31
? 出生体重<2 500 g 4 1 296/2 423 1 397/2 431 10.69 0.01 72 0.90(0.80～1.01) 0.07
? 出生体重<1 500 g 3 195/2 123 199/2 131 0.93 0.63 0 0.98(0.81～1.19) 0.86
? 宫缩药物应用 2 96/469 121/473 0.15 0.69 0 0.80(0.63～1.01) 0.06
? ROP 3 131/1 329 3/1 322 0.03 0.87 0 3.85(1.19～12.45) 0.02
? BPD 2 6/857 14/869 1.63 0.20 39 0.43(0.17～1.10) 0.08
? NICU 2 141/1 091 190/1 108 2.19 0.14 54 0.73(0.53～1.00) 0.05
? 胎儿死亡 3 22/2 123 34/2 131 0.70 0.71 0 0.66(0.39～1.11) 0.12
? 新生儿死亡 3 21/1 358 17/1 354 0.01 0.91 0 1.24(0.66～2.33) 0.51
? 围生期胎儿/新生儿死亡 3 50/1 612 51/1 608 1.75 0.42 0 0.98(0.67～1.43) 0.92
表3 双胎妊娠合并宫颈长度缩短的亚组妊娠结局分析
项目 RCT数量(篇) 双胎孕妇例数/分娩新生儿例数 统计学异质性 Meta分析结果
子宫颈托组 对照组 χ2值 P值 I2(%) RR值(95%CI) P值
CL<38 mm双胎孕妇 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 早产儿出生胎龄<37周 2 123/228 134/205 0.02 0.88 0 0.81(0.69～0.94) 0.007
? 早产儿出生胎龄<28周 2 12/228 16/205 4.43 0.04 77 0.58(0.11～3.06) 0.52
? 新生儿败血症 2 19/437 37/396 0.19 0.66 0 0.50(0.30～0.86) 0.01
? RDS 2 41/437 55/396 2.15 0.14 53 0.85(0.37～1.97) 0.71
? IVH 2 3/437 6/396 3.11 0.08 68 0.43(0.02～8.47) 0.58
? NEC 2 8/437 19/396 0.15 0.70 0 0.43(0.20～0.95) 0.04
CL≤25 mm双胎孕妇 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? SPB时孕龄<37周 2 102/174 98/174 0.93 0.34 0 1.04(0.87～1.24) 0.69
? SPB时孕龄<34周 2 44/174 54/174 7.89 0.005 87 0.72(0.25～2.06) 0.54
? SPB时孕龄<28周 2 18/174 17/174 3.96 0.05 75 0.93(0.23～3.71) 0.91
? 出生体重<2 500 g 2 196/348 212/346 4.65 0.03 78 0.88(0.63～1.23) 0.45
? 出生体重<1 500 g 2 58/348 53/346 1.91 0.17 48 1.10(0.78～1.54) 0.60
? 围生儿死亡 2 20/348 14/346 1.93 0.16 48 1.43(0.75～2.74) 0.28
[1]
Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, 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 [J]. Lancet, 2012, 379(9832): 2162-2172.
[2]
Liu L, Johnson HL, Cousens S, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for 2010 with time trends since 2000 [J]. Lancet, 2012, 379(9832): 2151-2161.
[3]
Beck S, Wojdyla D, Say L, et al. The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity [J]. Bull World Health Organ, 2010, 88(1): 31-38.
[4]
Botting N, Powls A, Cooke RW, et al. Cognitive and educational outcome of very-low-birthweight children in early adolescence [J]. Dev Med Child Neurol, 1998, 40(10): 652-660.
[5]
Buck GM, Msall ME, Schisterman EF, et al. Extreme prematurity and school outcomes [J]. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 2000, 14(4): 324-331.
[6]
Lefebvre F, Glorieux J, St-Laurent-Gagnon T. Neonatal survival and disability rate at age 18 months for infants born between 23 and 28 weeks of gestation [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1996, 174(3): 833-838.
[7]
Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, et al. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth [J]. N Engl J Med, 2005, 352(1): 9-19.
[8]
Tucker J, McGuire W. Epidemiology of preterm birth [J]. BMJ, 2004, 329(7467): 675-678.
[9]
Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, et al. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth [J]. Lancet, 2008, 371(9606): 75-84.
[10]
Arabin B, Halbesma JR, Vork F, et al. Is treatment with vaginal pessaries an option in patients with a sonographically detected short cervix? [J]. J Perinat Med, 2003, 31(2): 122-133.
[11]
Dharan VB, Ludmir J. Alternative treatment for a short cervix: the cervical pessary [J]. Semin Perinatol, 2009, 33(5): 338-342.
[12]
Andersen HF, Nugent CE, Wanty SD, et al. Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1990, 163(3): 859-867.
[13]
Goya M, de la Calle M, Pratcorona L, et al. Cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with twin gestation and sonographic short cervix: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PECEP-Twins) [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 214(2): 145-152.
[14]
Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet, 2012, 379(9828): 1800-1806.
[15]
Berghella V, Dugoff L, Ludmir J. Prevention of preterm birth with pessary in twins (PoPPT): a randomized controlled trial [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 49(5): 567-572.
[16]
Liem S, Schuit E, Hegeman M, et al. Cervical pessaries for prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy (ProTWIN): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet, 2013, 382(9901): 1341-1349.
[17]
Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, et al. Cervical pessary placement for prevention of preterm birth in unselected twin pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 214(1): 3.e1-e9.
[18]
Hui SY, Chor CM, Lau TK, et al. Cerclage pessary for preventing preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix at 20 to 24 weeks: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Am J Perinatol, 2013, 30(4): 283-288.
[19]
Nicolaides KH, Syngelaki A, Poon LC, et al. A randomized trial of a cervical pessary to prevent preterm singleton birth [J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 374(11): 1044-1052.
[20]
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and Meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [J]. Syst Rev, 2015, 4: 1.
[21]
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1. 0[J]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011: 33-49.
[22]
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in Meta-analyses [J]. BMJ, 2003, 327(7414): 557-560.
[23]
Dang VQ, Nguyen LK, He YT, et al. LB03: cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a cervix [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 218(1): S603-S604.
[24]
Romero R, Nicolaides K, Conde-Agudelo A, et al. 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 [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 206(2): 124.e1-e19.
[25]
Berghella V, Rafael TJ, Szychowski JM, et al. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography in women with singleton gestations and previous preterm birth: a Meta-analysis [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 117(3): 663-671.
[26]
Vitsky M. Simple treatment of the incompetent cervical os [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1961, 81(6): 1194-1197.
[27]
Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Bomba-Opon D, Zygula A, et al. Adjunctive pessary therapy after emergency cervical cerclage for cervical insufficiency with protruding fetal membranes in the second trimester of pregnancy: a novel modification of treatment [J]. Biomed Res Int, 2015, 2015: 185371.
[28]
Fox NS, Gupta S, Lam-Rachlin J, et al. Cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone in twin pregnancies with a short cervix [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 127(4): 625-630.
[29]
Liem SM, van Pampus MG, Mol BW, et al. Cervical pessaries for the prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review [J]. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2013, 2013: 576723.
[30]
Saccone G, Ciardulli A, Xodo S, et al. Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancies with short cervical length: a systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2017, 30(24): 2918-2925.
[31]
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee. The role of cervical pessary placement to prevent preterm birth in clinical practice[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017, 216(3): B8-B10.
[32]
Mackie FL, Hall MJ, Morris RK, et al. Early prognostic factors of outcomes in monochorionic twin pregnancy: systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 219(5): S0002937818304009.
[33]
Schuit E, Stock S, Rode L, et al. Effectiveness of progestogens to improve perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies: an individual participant data meta-analysis [J]. BJOG, 2015, 122(1): 27-37.
[34]
Liem SM, Van d ML, Bekedam DJ, et al. Cervical length measurement for the prediction of preterm birth in symptomatic women with a twin pregnancy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2013, (2013-5-13), 2013, 2013(9): 125897.
[35]
D′Antonio F, Khalil A, Pagani G, et al. Crown-rump length discordance and adverse perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies: systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 44(2): 138-146.
[36]
Cheongsee F, Schuit E, Arroyomanzano D, et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. BMJ, 2016, 354(2): i4353.
[37]
Qin JB, Wang H, Sheng X, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in dichorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105(5): 1180-1192.
[38]
Fong F, Thangaratinam S, Zamora J. Increased stillbirth in uncomplicated monochorionic twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2013, 121(6): 1318-1326.
[39]
Saccone G, Rust O, Althuisius S, et al. Cerclage for short cervix in twin pregnancies: systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized trials using individual patient-level data [J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2015, 94(4): 352-358.
[40]
Jarde A, Lutsiv O, Park C, et al. Preterm birth prevention in twin pregnancies with progesterone, pessary, or cerclage: a systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. BJOG, 2017, 124(8): 1163-1173.
[1] Haoyuan Yang, Jie Gong, Qingwei Zou, Hang Ruan. Current research status on adverse pregnancy outcomes of maternal and infant in pregnant women with asthma[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 522-529.
[2] Tiantian Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu. Pregnancy outcome of twin pregnancy with Gitelman syndrome: a case report and literature review[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 559-568.
[3] Xiaoqing Ju, Yunjie Jin, Xiaoyan Wang. Influencing factors of uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with scarred uterus after cesarean section[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 575-581.
[4] Juan Gu, Qingqing Sun, Fangfang Hu, Yijuan Cao, Yujuan Qi. Clinical application of endometrial receptivity array to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with repeated embryo implantation failure[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 582-587.
[5] Beibei Wang, Qixiu Dong, Hongyan Xi, Qingyun Yu, Lijun Zhang, Guang Shi. Analysis of influencing factors of medical abortion failure of pregnant women in early pregnancy and construction of related prediction model and its predictive value for medical abortion success[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 588-594.
[6] Xu Chen, Yuru Zhan, Chunhua Wang. Clinical value of ABO blood group combined with thyroid function in prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 604-610.
[7] Mengling Zhou, Zhiwei Xue, Shu Zhou. Changes in size of uterine myoma during pregnancy and its association with adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 611-615.
[8] Chenxi Ran, Rufei Shen, Mingyu Liao, Qian Liao, Ling Zhou, Yuling Zhang, Min Long. Treatment and management of pituitary tumor during pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(04): 487-491.
[9] Li Chen, Xueqin Lei, Lian Duan, Yue Zeng, Guolin He. Analysis of influencing factors of success of trial of labor after twice cesarean sections and its pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 287-294.
[10] Guohua Ren, Xiaoxiao Du, Shanling Hong, Shuai Shao. Change and significance of serum interleukin-22, hydrogen sulfide, and osteoprotegerin levels of patients with hypertensive acute kidney injury in pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 150-155.
[11] Yuyan Zhang, Bin Hu, Weihong Zhang, Mei Xu, Hui Zhu, Xinyue Yang, Hailing Liu. Relationship between echocardiography parameters and liver function during the second trimester of pregnancy and their predictive value for adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(06): 499-504.
[12] Xin Wang, Lin Liu, Zhejia Wen, Chunling Liu, Hong Zhang, Fang Lyu. Effect of stress exposure before pregnancy on subsequent pregnancy outcomes in mice[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 431-437.
[13] Xueyun Liu, Ying Fan, Aijun Yao, Shengmiao Zhang, Yani Lv, Bingqing Zhang, Xiaoyu Zhang, Heng. Liu. Effects of individualized whole-course nursing intervention based on WeChat mini program on pregnancy weight and delivery outcome[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 455-460.
[14] Xiaoxiang Wu, Bo Yang, Jingxuan Li, Fengling Zhang, Guihui Guo, Shaopei Zheng. Predictive value of umbilical artery ultrasonography parameters, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, and sFlt-1/PLGF ratio for adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with pregnancy induced hypertension syndrome[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(03): 266-271.
[15] Lizi Zhang, Dunjin Chen. Adverse outcomes and long­term prognosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 155-158.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Copyright © Chinese Medical Association, Chinese Medical Multimedia Press  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号