Value of ultrasound in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth: a literature review

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of neonatal and infant morbidity and mortality. This review summarizes current advances in ultrasound (US) for the prediction of spontaneous PTB. Special attention is paid to the methodology of transvaginal cervicometry, as well as other US features such as intra-amniotic "sludge," the uterocervical angle, the endocervix, fetal membrane assessment, elastography, and fetal response markers. The review also emphasizes the necessity of developing standardized protocols and performing validation studies to improve the reproducibility and clinical efficacy of US parameters used to predict spontaneous PTB.

To date, it has been established that ultrasound cervicometry performed between 15 and 24 weeks of gestation effectively predicts extremely early PTB due to cervical insufficiency (CI); however, these standards of examination are often not followed in routine clinical practice.

The assessment of elastography paremeters, the uterocervical angle, and the glandular index as predictors of CI-related PTB remains controversial, as does the assessment of fetal membranes, the presence of “sludge”, and fetal organ evaluation as predictors of infectious-related PTB. Although these markers hold certain potential for risk stratification, their prognostic value does not exceed that of transvaginal cervicometry, necessitating the development of models based on multifactorial analysis.

Conclusion. Given the multi-etiological nature of the PTB syndrome, further research is required to identify independent, highly specific ultrasound predictors based on the probable etiology and their combination with other clinical and laboratory markers within multifactorial prognostic models. This will allow for timely and differentiated prophylaxis of spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk patients and, if necessary, facilitate patient triage to specialized centers capable of providing high-tech care for low-birth-weight preterm neonates.

1. Romero R., Jung E., Chaiworapongsa T. et al. Toward a new taxonomy of obstetrical disease: improved performance of maternal blood biomarkers for the great obstetrical syndromes when classified according to placental pathology. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 227 (4): 615.e1–615.e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.015

2. Clinical guidelines “Preterm birth”. Year 2024 https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/preview-cr/331_2 (date of access 09/27/2024) (In Russian)

3. Perin J., Mulick A., Yeung D. et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-19: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet Child. Adolesc. Health. 2022; 6 (2): 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00311-4. Epub 2021 Nov 17. Erratum in: Lancet Child. Adolesc. Health. 2022; 6 (1): e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00382-5. PMID: 34800370; PMCID: PMC8786667

4. Khandre V., Potdar J., Keerti A. Preterm Birth: An Overview. Cureus. 2022; 14 (12): e33006. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33006

5. Vidal M.S. Jr, Lintao R.C.V., Severino M.E.L. et al. Spontaneous preterm birth: Involvement of multiple feto-maternal tissues and organ systems, differing mechanisms, and pathways. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2022; 13: 1015622. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.1015622

6. Romero R. Spontaneous preterm labor can be predicted and prevented. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 57 (1): 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23565

7. Grudnitskaya Ye.N., Nebyshinets L.M. Osobennosti iskhodov beremennosti u patsiyentok s nedifferentsirovannoy displaziyey soyedinitel'noy tkani: observatsionnoye kogortnoye prospektivnoye issledovaniye. Kubanskiy nauchnyy meditsinskiy vestnik. 2024; 31 (4): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.25207/1608-6228-2024-31-4-17-29 (In Russian)

8. Bradley E., Blencowe H., Moller A.B. et al. Born too soon: global epidemiology of preterm birth and drivers for change. Reprod. Health. 2025; 22 (Suppl. 2): 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-025-02033-x

9. Zhu Z., Yuan L., Wang J. et al. Mortality and Morbidity of Infants Born Extremely Preterm at Tertiary Medical Centers in China From 2010 to 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4 (5): e219382. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.9382

10. Melo T.F.M., Carregaro R.L., Araújo W.N. et al. Direct costs of prematurity and factors associated with birth and maternal conditions. Rev. Saude Publica. 2022; 56: 49. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056003657

11. Van Blankenstein E., Aveline A., Battersby C. A protocol for neoWONDER: Neonatal whole population data linkage to improve long-term health and wellbeing of preterm and sick babies. PLoS One. 2024; 19 (7): e0305113. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305113

12. Ultrasound Workshop in Obstetrics. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2023; 49, Suppl. 1: 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15597

13. Andersen H.F., Nugent C.E., Wanty S.D., Hayashi R.H. Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1990; 163 (3): 859–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(90)91084-p

14. Greco E., Gupta R., Syngelaki A. et al. First-trimester screening for spontaneous preterm delivery with maternal characteristics and cervical length. Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 2012; 31 (3): 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1159/000335686

15. Retzke J.D., Sonek J.D., Lehmann J. et al. Comparison of three methods of cervical measurement in the first trimester: single-line, two-line, and tracing. Prenat. Diagn. 2013; 33 (3): 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4056

16. Krivonosova N.V. Method for predicting extremely early premature birth in pregnant women. Patent for invention RU 2792919, 03/28/2023. Application No. 2022119280 dated 07/13/2022 (In Russian)

17. Coutinho C.M., Sotiriadis A., Odibo A. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 60 (3): 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26020

18. Zwertbroek E.F., Groen H., Fontanella F. et al. Performance of the FMF First-Trimester Preeclampsia-Screening Algorithm in a High-Risk Population in The Netherlands. Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 2021; 48 (2): 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512335

19. Giorgione V., Quintero Mendez O., Pinas A. et al. Routine first-trimester pre-eclampsia screening and risk of preterm birth. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 60 (2): 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24915

20. Cavoretto P.I., Farina A., Salmeri N. et al. First trimester risk of preeclampsia and rate of spontaneous birth in patients without preeclampsia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024; 231 (4): 452.e1–452.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.008

21. Yearwood L., Bone J.N., Wen Q. et al. Does maternal stature modify the association between infants who are small or large for gestational age and adverse perinatal outcomes? A retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2023; 130 (5): 464–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17350.

22. Tersigni C., Neri C., D'Ippolito S. et al. Impact of maternal obesity on the risk of preterm delivery: insights into pathogenic mechanisms. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2022; 35 (16): 3216–3221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1817370

23. Penzhoyan G.A., Markova L.M., Grishanov N.V. The importance of etiological factors of disorders of the male reproductive system in the treatment of male infertility. Problems of reproduction. 2000; 6 (6): 60–61. (In Russian)

24. Pelikh A., Smith K.R., Myrskylä M., Goisis A. Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Types and Birth Outcomes: A Between-Family and Within-Family Analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 139 (2): 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004655

25. Hoffman M.K. Prediction and Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 234. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 138 (6): 945–946. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004612

26. Story L., Shennan A. Cervical cerclage: An evolving evidence base. BJOG. 2024; 131 (12): 1579–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17905

27. Temming L., Mikhail E. SMFM Publications Committee. Electronic address: pubs@smfm.org. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #65: Transabdominal cerclage. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 228 (6): B2–B10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.018

28. Shennan A., Suff N., Leigh Simpson J. et al. FIGO Working Group for Preterm Birth. FIGO good practice recommendations on progestogens for prevention of preterm delivery. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2021; 155 (1): 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13852

29. Novikova S.V., Zarochentseva N.V., Dalnikovskaya L.A., Klimova I.V. Cervical insufficiency is a predictor of preterm birth. Issues of Practical Colposcopy end Genital Infections. 2022; 2: 30–36. https://doi.org/10.46393/27826392_2022_2_30 (In Russian)

30. Boelig R.C., Kripalu V., Chen S.L. et al. Utility of follow-up cervical length screening in low-risk women with a cervical length of 26 to 29 mm. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 225 (2): 179.e1–179.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.02.027

31. Tran T.L., Jwala S., Terenna C. et al. Evaluation of additive effect of quantitative fetal fibronectin to cervical length for prediction of spontaneous preterm birth among asymptomatic high-risk women. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2020; 33 (15): 2628–2634. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1555816

32. Seravalli V., Abati I., Strambi N. et al. Universal cervical length screening for preterm birth is not useful after 24-weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2023; 102 (11): 1541–1548. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14683

33. Bortoletto T.G., Silva T.V., Borovac-Pinheiro A. et al. Cervical length varies considering different populations and gestational outcomes: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (2): e0245746. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245746

34. Van Zijl M.D., Koullali B., Kleinrouweler E.C. et al. Uniform International Method to Measure Cervical Length: Are We There Yet? Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 2022; 49 (4): 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523996

35. Van Dijk C.E., van Gils A.L., van Zijl M.D. et al.; Quadruple P Research Group. Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a singleton pregnancy, a short cervix, and no history of spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation: open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. BMJ. 2024; 384: e077033. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077033

36. Beaver H., Lanzarone V., Low G.K. Comparing transabdominal and transvaginal cervical length measurements at mid-trimester fetal anomaly scan: The impact of bladder fullness and lower uterine contractions. Australas J. Ultrasound Med. 2024; 27 (4): 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajum.12409

37. Pedretti M.K., Doherty D.A., Dickinson J.E. The perceptions of obstetric care providers about cervical length screening for preterm birth prevention. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022; 62 (5): 650–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13514

38. Peterson J.A., Smolar I., Stoffels G., Bianco A. Intra-Sonographer Correlation Between Transabdominal and Transvaginal Cervical Length Measurements and Associated Patient Demographics. J. Ultrasound. Med. 2023; 42 (11): 2583–2588. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16293

39. Pedretti M.K., Dickinson J.E., Doherty D.A., Newnham J.P. Routine transabdominal cervical length screening in mid-pregnancy for the prevention of preterm birth: Is it good enough to use as a screening test? Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2025; 65 (1): 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13859

40. Songserm V., Komwilaisak R., Saksiriwuttho P., Kongwattanakul K. Transperineal versus transvaginal sonographic measurements of cervical length in pregnant women between 16 and 24-weeks of gestation. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2019; 47 (7): 389–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22640

41. Clinical guidelines "Isthmic-cervical insufficiency". Year 2024 https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/preview-cr/671_2 (date of access 09/02/2024)(In Russian)

42. Prediction and Prevention of Spontaneous Preterm Birth: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 234. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 138 (2): e65–e90. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004479

43. Berger R., Abele H., Bahlmann F. et al. Prevention and Therapy of Preterm Birth. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/025, September 2022) – Part 1 with Recommendations on the Epidemiology, Etiology, Prediction, Primary and Secondary Prevention of Preterm Birth. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2023; 83 (5): 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2044-0203. Erratum in: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2023; 83 (8): 1043. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2114-0548

44. Shennan A., Story L., Jacobsson B., Grobman W.A.; FIGO Working Group for Preterm Birth. FIGO good practice recommendations on cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2021; 155 (1): 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13835

45. Emilia F., Laurence K., Lisa-Marie L. et al. Clinical guidance paper VVOG primary and secondary prevention of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. X. 2025; 27: 100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2025.100401

46. Kagan K.O., Sonek J. How to measure cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 45 (3): 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14742

47. Thoirs K., O'Hara S., Quinton A. et al. Ultrasound assessment of the gravid cervix to assess for risk of spontaneous preterm birth: Introducing an evidence-based clinical guideline for sonographers. Sonography. 2024; 11 (2): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/sono.12424

48. Souka A.P., Pilalis A. Reproducibility of cervical length measurement throughout pregnancy. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2021; 34 (13): 2185–2191. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1660765

49. Creswell L., Rolnik D.L., Lindow S.W., O'Gorman N. Preterm Birth: Screening and Prediction. Int. J. Womens Health. 2023; 15: 1981–1997. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S436624

50. Nooshin E., Mahdiss M., Maryam R. et al. Prediction of Preterm Delivery by Ultrasound Measurement of Cervical Length and Funneling Changes of the Cervix in Pregnant Women with Preterm Labor at 28-34 weeks of Gestation. J. Med. Life. 2020; 13 (4): 536–542. https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2020-0069

51. Xiao H., Xing X., Zhang C., Shao Y. Association between clinical subtypes and pregnancy outcome of cervical incompetence: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25 (1): 348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07465-8

52. Khudorozhkova E.D. Echographic Assessment of the Cervix for the Prediction of Preterm Delivery. Medical Visualization. 2015; 3: 30–34. (In Russian)

53. Stratulat V., Melamed N., Barrett J. et al. Cervical assessment certification and its impact on performance quality in the context of universal cervical screening. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2024; 164 (3): 951–958. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15078

54. Ridout A.E., Ross G., Seed P.T. et al. Predicting spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women with cervical cerclage. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 61 (5): 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.26161

55. Cochrane E., Getrajdman C., Tavella N.F. et al. Is There Utility in Transvaginal Cervical Length Surveillance After Cerclage Placement for the Prediction of Spontaneous Preterm Birth? Cureus. 2024; 16 (7): e64818. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64818

56. Chen R., Huang X., Li N., Li B. Analysis of pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing ultrasound-indicated cerclage and identification the influence factors for predicting preterm birth: A retrospective study of 87 cases. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2023; 62 (2): 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2022.10.010

57. Schnettler W., Manoharan S., Smith K. Transvaginal Sonographic Assessment Following Cervical Pessary Placement for Preterm Birth Prevention. AJP Rep. 2022; 12 (1): e80–e88. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742273

58. Mountain K.E., Ng S., Elger T. et al. Predictive value of cervical length for spontaneous preterm birth in women with cervical cerclage. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29281

59. Barinov S.V., Artymuk N.V., Novikova O.N. et al. Analysis of risk factors and predictors of pregnancy loss and strategies for the management of cervical insufficiency in pregnant women at a high risk of preterm birth. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2021; 34 (13): 2071–2079. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1656195

60. Luca S.T., Săsăran V., Muntean M., Mărginean C. A Review of the Literature: Amniotic Fluid “Sludge”-Clinical Significance and Perinatal Outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 2024; 13 (17): 5306. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175306

61. Pannain G.D., Pereira A.M.G., Rocha M.L.T.L.F.D., Lopes R.G.C. Amniotic Sludge and Prematurity: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2023; 45 (8): e489–e498. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772189

62. Pustotina O. Effects of antibiotic therapy in women with the amniotic fluid “sludge” at 15-24 weeks of gestation on pregnancy outcomes. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2020; 33 (17): 3016–3027. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1567706

63. Yeo L., Romero R., Chaiworapongsa T. et al. Resolution of acute cervical insufficiency after antibiotics in a case with amniotic fluid sludge. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2022; 35 (25): 5416–5426. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1881477

64. Khalil A., Sotiriadis A., Chaoui R. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: role of ultrasound in congenital infection. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 56 (1): 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21991

65. Rouse D.J., MacPherson C., Saade G.R. et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. The association of cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2025; 233 (2): e39–e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.04.014

66. Kim Y., Kim Y.M., Kim D.R. et al. The Multifaceted Clinical Characteristics of Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: From Pregnancy to Long-Term Outcomes. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2023; 38 (32): e249. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e249

67. Hurt K., Kodym P., Stejskal D. et al. Toxoplasmosis impact on prematurity and low birth weight. PLoS One. 2022; 17 (1): e0262593. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262593

68. Rabaan A.A., Uzairue L.I., Alfaraj A.H. et al. Seroprevalence, Risk Factors and Maternal-Fetal Outcomes of Toxoplasma gondii in Pregnant Women from WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pathogens. 2023; 12 (9): 1157. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12091157

69. Siargkas A., Pachi C., Nigdelis M.P. et al. The Association of Placental Grading with Perinatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15 (10): 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15101264

70. Porschen C., Schmitz R., Schmidt R. et al. Second trimester fetal thymus size in association to preterm birth. J. Perinat. Med. 2021; 50 (2): 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2021-0065

71. Hamamoto T.E.N.K., Hatanaka A.R., França M.S. et al. An enlarged fetal thymus may be the initial response to intrauterine inflammation in pregnant women at risk for preterm birth. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. (1992). 2023; 69 (5): e20221678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20221678

72. Hall M., Hutter J., Suff N. et al. Antenatal diagnosis of chorioamnionitis: A review of the potential role of fetal and placental imaging. Prenat. Diagn. 2022; 42 (8): 1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6188

73. Goletzke J., Pagenkemper M., Wiessner C. et al. Longitudinal adrenal gland measurements and growth trajectories as risk markers for late preterm delivery. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020; 20 (1): 570. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03255-6

74. Gabor M., Kunochova I., Krizko M. Jr. et al. Simple ultrasound evaluation of fetal adrenal glands as a marker of imminent preterm birth: a preliminary report. Bratisl. Lek. Listy. 2021; 122 (10): 721–726. https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2021_115

75. Sawaddisan R., Kor-Anantakul O., Pruksanusak N., Geater A. Uterocervical angle measurement for preterm birth prediction in singleton pregnant women with no history of preterm birth and normal cervical length: A prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2020; 252: 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.020

76. Goldstein M.J., Bailer J.M., Gonzalez-Brown V.M. Uterocervical angle in predicting spontaneous preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJOG Glob. Rep. 2023; 3 (3): 100240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100240

77. Nguyen T.T.H., Vu T.V., Nguyen H.V.Q. Uterocervical angle and cervical length measurements for spontaneous preterm birth prediction in low-risk singleton pregnant women: a prospective cohort study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2024; 310 (3): 1611–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07646-4

78. Reicher L., Fouks Y., Yogev Y. Cervical Assessment for Predicting Preterm Birth-Cervical Length and Beyond. J. Clin. Med. 2021; 10 (4): 627. htts://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040627

79. Khalitova R.Sh., Tyurina A.A., Yashchuk A.G. Prediction of premature birth in women with a snort cervix. International Research Journal. 2024; 6 (144): 1. https://doi.org/10.60797/IRJ.2024.144 (In Russian)

80. Tantengco O.A.G., Menon R. Contractile function of the cervix plays a role in normal and pathological pregnancy and parturition. Med. Hypotheses. 2020; 145: 110336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110336

81. Oliver E.R., Maturen K.E., Feldstein V.A. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Assessment of Gravid Cervix. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2020; 17 (5S): S26–S35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.01.032

82. Vidal M.S. Jr., Lintao R.C.V., Severino M.E.L. et al. Spontaneous preterm birth: Involvement of multiple feto-maternal tissues and organ systems, differing mechanisms, and pathways. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2022; 13: 1015622. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.1015622

83. Alfuraih A.M. The Emerging Role of Sonoelastography in Pregnancy: Applications in Assessing Maternal and Fetal Health. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 15 (1): 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15010047

84. Vasudeva A., Kodavati H., Samanth J. et al. TVS-guided cervical strain elastography is more effective than measuring cervical length as an independent predictor of spontaneous preterm delivery in asymptomatic, high-risk women during the mid-trimester. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2024; 37 (1): 2381589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2024.2381589

85. Luca A.M., Haba R., Cobzeanu L.M. et al. Predicting Preterm Birth with Strain Ratio Analysis of the Internal Cervical Os: A Prospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023; 12 (12): 3885. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123885

86. Thomsen C.R., Jensen M.S.S., Bor P. et al. Recommendations for strain elastography of the uterine cervix. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2024; 310 (4): 2023–2033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07693-x

87. Seol H.J., Sung J.H., Seong W.J. et al. Standardization of measurement of cervical elastography, its reproducibility, and analysis of baseline clinical factors affecting elastographic parameters. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2020; 63 (1): 42–54. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2020.63.1.42

88. Duan H., Chaemsaithong P., Ju X. et al. Shear-wave sonoelastographic assessment of cervix in pregnancy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020; 99 (11): 1458–1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13874

89. Wang B., Zhang Y., Chen S. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting preterm delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98 (29): e16449. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016449

90. Nguyen-Hoang L., Chaemsaithong P., Cheng Y.K.Y. et al. Longitudinal evaluation of cervical length and shear wave elastography in women with spontaneous preterm birth. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2024; 63 (6): 789–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.27614

91. Lu H., Liu Y., Yang F., et al. The value of real-time shear wave elastography in spontaneous preterm birth. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103 (33): e39288. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039288

92. Mlodawski J., Mlodawska M., Plusajska J. et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative cervical strain elastography (E-Cervix) in pregnancy. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 23689. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02498-3

93. Massó P., Melchor J., Rus G., Molina F.S. A Preliminary Study on the Safety of Elastography during Pregnancy: Hypoacusia, Anthropometry, and Apgar Score in Newborns. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10 (11): 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10110967

94. Zhang C., Li N., Li C., Li J. A Safety Study of the Effects of 2-Dimensional Shear Wave Elastography on Synaptic Morphologic Characteristics and Function in the Hippocampus of Neonatal Mice. J. Ultrasound Med. 2021; 40 (1): 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15387

95. Wu D., Cao J., Xu M. et al. Fetal membrane imaging: current and future perspectives-a review. Front. Physiol. 2024; 15: 1330702. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1330702

96. Menon R., Moore J.J. Fetal Membranes, Not a Mere Appendage of the Placenta, but a Critical Part of the Fetal-Maternal Interface Controlling Parturition. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. N. Am. 2020; 47 (1): 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2019.10.004

97. Volpe N., di Pasquo E., Ferretti A. et al. Hyperechoic amniotic membranes in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes (p-PROM) and pregnancy outcome. J. Perinat. Med. 2020; 49 (3): 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0223