TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction: Preventing preterm birth with progesterone
T2 - costs and effects of screening low risk women with a singleton pregnancy for short cervical length, the Triple P study
AU - van Os, Melanie A
AU - van der Ven, Jeanine A
AU - Kleinrouweler, C Emily
AU - Pajkrt, Eva
AU - de Miranda, Esteriek
AU - van Wassenaer, Aleid
AU - Porath, Martina
AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M
AU - Bloemenkamp, Kitty Wm
AU - Willekes, Christine
AU - Woiski, Mallory
AU - Oudijk, Martijn A
AU - Bilardo, Katia M
AU - Sikkema, Marko J
AU - Duvekot, Johannes J
AU - Veersema, Diederik
AU - Laudy, Jacqueline
AU - Kuiper, Petra
AU - de Groot, Christianne Jm
AU - Mol, Ben Willem J
AU - Haak, Monique C
PY - 2025/1/24
Y1 - 2025/1/24
N2 - Correction: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11, 77 (2011) Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in Background section. “progesterone” should read “progestagens” in the following sentences: All highlighted instances of “progesterone” should be changed as indicated. “A breakthrough in the management of women at increased risk is the use of progesterone. Two randomized clinical trials demonstrated a reduction in preterm birth of 50% in women with a previous preterm birth [4, 5]. The number of women who delivered prior to 32 weeks in both studies decreased from 20–10%. The effectiveness of progesterone was also addressed in a recent meta-analysis [6]. Relative to women allocated to placebo, those who received progestational agents (17[alpha]-hydroxyprogesterone caproate and other forms of progesterone) had lower rates of preterm delivery (26% versus 36%), corresponding to a number needed to treat to prevent one premature delivery of 10. In addition, women who had received progestational agents had lower rates of perinatal mortality (14.8% versus 17.1%). The problem with the use of progesterone at present is that, based on current evidence, it can only be applied to women with a history of preterm birth.
AB - Correction: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11, 77 (2011) Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in Background section. “progesterone” should read “progestagens” in the following sentences: All highlighted instances of “progesterone” should be changed as indicated. “A breakthrough in the management of women at increased risk is the use of progesterone. Two randomized clinical trials demonstrated a reduction in preterm birth of 50% in women with a previous preterm birth [4, 5]. The number of women who delivered prior to 32 weeks in both studies decreased from 20–10%. The effectiveness of progesterone was also addressed in a recent meta-analysis [6]. Relative to women allocated to placebo, those who received progestational agents (17[alpha]-hydroxyprogesterone caproate and other forms of progesterone) had lower rates of preterm delivery (26% versus 36%), corresponding to a number needed to treat to prevent one premature delivery of 10. In addition, women who had received progestational agents had lower rates of perinatal mortality (14.8% versus 17.1%). The problem with the use of progesterone at present is that, based on current evidence, it can only be applied to women with a history of preterm birth.
U2 - 10.1186/s12884-025-07171-5
DO - 10.1186/s12884-025-07171-5
M3 - Erratum / corrigendum / retractions
SN - 1471-2393
VL - 25
JO - BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
JF - BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
IS - 1
M1 - 63
ER -