Table 4.
Indicators and performance of screening for composite measures of precocious cervical ripening in selected large observational cohort studies, 1980–2014
| Mode of assessment | Study, Year | Time (wks) |
Indicators # (cm for CL) |
PTD (wks) |
Prevalence | Sensitivity % |
Specificity % |
+PV % |
−PV % |
+LR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I: DE only | Hartmann et al,199975 | 24–29 | CL<2.0 | 37 | 8.3 | 13 | 93 | 15 | 92 | 1.9 |
| Dilatation ≥1.0 | 8 | 99 | 38 | 92 | 8 | |||||
| Score*>2 | 20 | 93 | 21 | 92 | 2.9 | |||||
| Difference | +7 | +1 | ||||||||
| II: DE and TVU | Newman et al., 200877 | 26–29 | CL ≤2.0 | 35 | 4.3 | 32 | 95 | 17 | 98 | 6.4 |
| T2 | Funneling | 32 | 91 | 11 | 98 | 3.5 | ||||
| Score<1.5 | 36 | 95 | 20 | 98 | 7.4 | |||||
| Difference | +4 | +1 | ||||||||
| Taipale and Hiilesmaa, 199863 | 18–22 | CL ≤2.9 | 35 | 0.8 | 19 | 97 | 6 | 6.3 | ||
| Dilatation≥0.5 | 37 | 2.4 | 16 | 99 | 20 | 16 | ||||
| Either | 29 | 97 | 7 | 9.7 | ||||||
| Difference | +10 | +3.4 | ||||||||
| III: TVU | de Carvalho et al,200576 | 21–24 | CL ≤2 | 34 | 3.4 | 7 | ||||
| CL+CF | 34 | |||||||||
| Difference | +27 | |||||||||
| Leung et al, 200562 | 18–22 | CL ≤2.7 | 34 | 0.7 | 37 | 96 | 6 | 100 | 9.8 | |
| Funneling | 32 | 94 | 3 | 100 | 5.2 | |||||
| Both | 26 | 99 | 15 | 100 | 26 | |||||
| Either | 42 | 91 | 3 | 100 | 4.7 | |||||
| Difference | +5 | +16.2 | ||||||||
Note. CL, cervical length; DE: digital examination; Difference: performance difference between the composite cervical assessment and cervicallength only; PTD, preterm delivery; TVU transvaginal ultrasonography;
*
Score=Cervical length-Dilatation; PV, predictive value; LR, likelihood ratio; wks: weeks.