Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The Arabin cervical pessary plus standard care did not reduce either the rate of preterm birth or adverse neonatal outcomes, compared with standard care alone.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Jane E Norman 1,*, John Norrie 2, Graeme MacLennan 3, David Cooper 3, Sonia Whyte 4, Sushila Chowdhry 5, Sarah Cunningham-Burley 5, Aileen R Neilson 5, Xue W Mei 6, Joel BE Smith 6, Andrew Shennan 7, Stephen C Robson 8, Steven Thornton 9, Mark D Kilby 10, Neil Marlow 11, Sarah J Stock 5, Philip R Bennett 12, Jane Denton 13

1 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2 Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
3 Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
4 Tommy’s Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
5 Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
6 Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
7 Tommy’s London Research Centre, King’s College London, London, UK
8 Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
9 Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
10 Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
11 Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
12 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
13 The Multiple Births Foundation, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document