INSTITUCIÓN EDUCATIVA Nº 2 Descripción
IV.1. Participación Infantil: Nivel de Conciencia
Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 1 Preterm birth < 36 weeks
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 31/63 24/62 100.0 % 1.27 [ 0.85, 1.90 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 1.27 [ 0.85, 1.90 ]
Total events: 31 (Knowledge of CL), 24 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.17 (P = 0.24) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 2 Preterm birth < 34 weeks. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 2 Preterm birth < 34 weeks
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 10/63 16/62 100.0 % 0.62 [ 0.30, 1.25 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 0.62 [ 0.30, 1.25 ]
Total events: 10 (Knowledge of CL), 16 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.35 (P = 0.18) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
34 Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery (Review)
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 3 Preterm birth < 32 weeks. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 3 Preterm birth < 32 weeks
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 4/63 7/62 100.0 % 0.56 [ 0.17, 1.83 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 0.56 [ 0.17, 1.83 ]
Total events: 4 (Knowledge of CL), 7 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.96 (P = 0.34) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.02 0.1 1 10 50
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 4 Preterm birth < 30 weeks. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 4 Preterm birth < 30 weeks
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 1/63 5/62 100.0 % 0.20 [ 0.02, 1.64 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 0.20 [ 0.02, 1.64 ]
Total events: 1 (Knowledge of CL), 5 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.50 (P = 0.13) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 5 Gestational age at delivery. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 5 Gestational age at delivery
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL DifferenceMean Weight DifferenceMean
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Fixed,95% CI IV,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 63 35.7 (2.2) 62 35.5 (3.1) 100.0 % 0.20 [ -0.74, 1.14 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 0.20 [ -0.74, 1.14 ]
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.42 (P = 0.68) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
-4 -2 0 2 4
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
36 Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery (Review)
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 6 Maternal hospitalisation for PTL. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 6 Maternal hospitalisation for PTL
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 21/63 16/62 100.0 % 1.29 [ 0.75, 2.23 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 1.29 [ 0.75, 2.23 ]
Total events: 21 (Knowledge of CL), 16 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.92 (P = 0.36) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 7 Tocolysis.
Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 7 Tocolysis
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 19/63 14/62 100.0 % 1.34 [ 0.74, 2.42 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 1.34 [ 0.74, 2.42 ]
Total events: 19 (Knowledge of CL), 14 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.95 (P = 0.34) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 8 Steroids for fetal lung maturity. Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 8 Steroids for fetal lung maturity
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 20/63 25/62 100.0 % 0.79 [ 0.49, 1.26 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 0.79 [ 0.49, 1.26 ]
Total events: 20 (Knowledge of CL), 25 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.99 (P = 0.32) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
38 Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery (Review)
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 9 Cervical cerclage.
Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 9 Cervical cerclage
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 2/63 0/62 100.0 % 4.92 [ 0.24, 100.49 ]
Total (95% CI) 63 62 100.0 % 4.92 [ 0.24, 100.49 ]
Total events: 2 (Knowledge of CL), 0 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.04 (P = 0.30) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 10 Birthweight (g).
Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 10 Birthweight (g)
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL DifferenceMean Weight DifferenceMean
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Fixed,95% CI IV,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 126 2457 (540) 124 2315 (677) 100.0 % 142.00 [ -9.95, 293.95 ]
Total (95% CI) 126 124 100.0 % 142.00 [ -9.95, 293.95 ]
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.83 (P = 0.067) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
-200 -100 0 100 200
Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins, Outcome 11 NICU admission.
Review: Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery
Comparison: 1 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured cervical length (CL) - asymptomatic women with twins Outcome: 11 NICU admission
Study or subgroup Knowledge of CL
No knowledge
of CL Risk Ratio Weight Risk Ratio
n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI
Gordon 2016 52/126 45/124 100.0 % 1.14 [ 0.83, 1.55 ]
Total (95% CI) 126 124 100.0 % 1.14 [ 0.83, 1.55 ]
Total events: 52 (Knowledge of CL), 45 (No knowledge of CL) Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.81 (P = 0.42) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 Favours knowledge of CL Favours no knowledge of CL
40 Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery (Review)
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Knowledge versus no knowledge of transvaginal ultrasound (TVU)-measured