{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,17]],"date-time":"2026-01-17T12:14:25Z","timestamp":1768652065508,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,5]],"date-time":"2014-04-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1396656000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>Using a fixed cut\u2010off of \u226425\u00a0mm, ultrasound assessment of cervical length during the 18\u201323\u00a0week anomaly scan has been shown to identify approximately 50% of pregnancies that would deliver prior to 34\u00a0weeks.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim<\/jats:title><jats:p>To determine whether a policy of reverting to transvaginal cervical assessment only if the cervix appears short (\u226425\u00a0mm) on transabdominal assessment affects the efficiency of screening.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Women with a singleton pregnancy that presented for a routine anomaly scan had their cervical length assessed transabdominally, initially with the maternal bladder full (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABF<\/jats:styled-content>) and then empty (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABE<\/jats:styled-content>). Cervical length was then assessed transvaginally (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content>).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>One hundred and ninety\u2010eight women agreed to participate in the study. Identification of the internal and external cervical os was possible during <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABF<\/jats:styled-content>,<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\"> TABE<\/jats:styled-content> and <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content> sonography in 97.0, 82.8 and 100%, respectively. Compared with <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content> sonography, <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABF<\/jats:styled-content> overestimates cervical length (6.1\u00a0mm difference in median values; <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\u00a0&lt;\u00a00.01). There was no significant difference between <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content> and <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABE<\/jats:styled-content>. However, <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABE<\/jats:styled-content> assessment was not possible in one in six women. If <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TABF<\/jats:styled-content> sonography was to be used as a screening tool and using \u226425\u00a0mm as the critical cut\u2010off, the sensitivity and specificity was 15.4 and 93.2%, respectively.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>This study has shown that assessment of cervical length using a <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TA<\/jats:styled-content> approach is only routinely possible when the bladder is full. However, measurements are significantly overestimated. Therefore, we feel that <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content> assessment of cervical length is the preferred method of reliable cervical assessment. As such, all women should be offered a <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">TV<\/jats:styled-content> assessment of cervical length at the time of the fetal anomaly ultrasound as a screening test for preterm birth.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/ajo.12204","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,5]],"date-time":"2014-04-05T06:59:22Z","timestamp":1396681162000},"page":"250-255","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":25,"title":["Ultrasound assessment of cervical length at 18\u201321\u00a0weeks' gestation in an <scp>A<\/scp>ustralian obstetric population: Comparison of transabdominal and transvaginal approaches"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"54","author":[{"given":"Anthony J.","family":"Marren","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ritu","family":"Mogra","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lars H.","family":"Pedersen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Institute of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Mary","family":"Walter","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Robert F.","family":"Ogle","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jon A.","family":"Hyett","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia"},{"name":"Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology Sydney Medical School University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,5]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","volume-title":"Australia's Mothers and Babies 2010","author":"Li Z","year":"2012"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.319.7217.1093"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1542\/peds.2007-0169"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199602293340904"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa067815"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.202"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.12.003"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(01)01466-1"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199602293340904"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.1998.12050312.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.2001.00437.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(98)00346-9"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2000.106851"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.1998.12050318.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.9073"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.2000.00094.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(86)80006-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(90)91084-P"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/jcu.1870190204"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7863\/jum.2008.27.9.1305"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2010.01225.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/14767058.2012.657278"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.12111"}],"container-title":["Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fajo.12204","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/ajo.12204","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,23]],"date-time":"2023-09-23T15:35:39Z","timestamp":1695483339000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/ajo.12204"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,5]]},"references-count":23,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/ajo.12204"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ajo.12204","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0004-8666","1479-828X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0004-8666","type":"print"},{"value":"1479-828X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,4,5]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2013-09-20","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2014-03-03","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2014-04-05","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}