1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70612-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin as a marker for preterm delivery: A meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
80
1
7

Year Published

2003
2003
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 136 publications
(89 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
80
1
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Recent advances in prenatal health care have markers that facilitate more accurate prediction of preterm birth. The use of biological markers to enhance clinical accuracy in predicting preterm birth has been recently proposed [2][3][4][5] . These tests have high capacity to identify the patients with high risk.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Recent advances in prenatal health care have markers that facilitate more accurate prediction of preterm birth. The use of biological markers to enhance clinical accuracy in predicting preterm birth has been recently proposed [2][3][4][5] . These tests have high capacity to identify the patients with high risk.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accurate markers to determine whether a pregnant woman is at high risk for premature delivery would potentially allow improved surveillance and more timely intervention to improve the outcome [2][3][4][5] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast with the previous four systematic reviews [12][13][14][15] we identified 64 studies (at least twice as many studies as the largest previous review 14 ) because we did not limit our search to a single database 13 15 nor did we apply language restrictions. 13 Because meta-analysis of studies that examine test accuracy are fraught with difficulty owing to poor methodological quality of the primary studies, we scrutinised the selected studies for their quality, an assessment undertaken in only one previous review.…”
Section: Quality Of Our Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, existing systematic reviews have been restricted to a few databases, [12][13][14][15] their study selection has often been limited by language, 12 13 15 and often they have not assessed study quality. [12][13][14] These factors are known to introduce potential for bias. 16 We conducted a comprehensive and rigorous systematic review to obtain reliable estimates of accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%