2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.11.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Blinded comparison of cervical portio length measurements by digital examination vs Cervilenz

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…At this stage, pessaries should only be administered within randomized or carefully planned and monitored population-based studies. If TVS is not available, other methods to measure cervical length could be considered 69 , 70 .…”
Section: Implications For Further Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At this stage, pessaries should only be administered within randomized or carefully planned and monitored population-based studies. If TVS is not available, other methods to measure cervical length could be considered 69 , 70 .…”
Section: Implications For Further Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This device, like digital examination, measures the vaginal or external (portio) cervical length and cannot determine internal cervical characteristics (Figure 1). 22 Measurements of cervical length using this device typically are shorter than ultrasound measurements 24–26 . Measurements of less than 30 mm when using this device were predictive of short cervix by transvaginal ultrasound 25…”
Section: Assessment Of Cervical Lengthmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Anualmente alrededor del mundo nacen 13 millones de niños prematuros, la mayoría en países en desarrollo, donde el parto pretérmino (PP) constituye el componente principal de la morbi-mortalidad perinatal (1), aportando más del 70% de la morbi-mortalidad neonatal mundial, con una incidencia entre 7 -12% en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica (2), donde al igual que en Europa, a pesar del incremento del uso de tocolíticos, su incidencia permanece sin cambios alrededor del 8% (3).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified