Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study

Yuyun Lisnawati; Noroyono Wibowo

doi:10.12688/f1000research.17525.2

Home Browse Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Yuyun Lisnawati ¹, Noroyono Wibowo²

PUBLISHED 25 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia
² Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

Yuyun Lisnawati
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Noroyono Wibowo
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: The theory of “functional progesterone withdrawal” explains the role of progesterone prior to delivery. Previous studies mentioned the existence of progesterone regulation in the cervix that plays a role in maintaining the integrity of the cervix and cervical ripening. Cervical progesterone levels relate to activities of progesterone at the cervix, compared to its amount in circulation. The objective of this study was to measure cervical mucus progesterone levels and its correlation to plasma progesterone levels in pregnancy.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in January-September 2010 at Persahabatan Hospital. The subjects were pregnant women in the 28^th– 34^th weeks of gestational age. In total, 72 subjects who met the criteria were divided into normal pregnancy group and preterm labor group. The cervical and plasma progesterone levels were measured using The Advia Centaur® Progesterone kit, which is a commercial immunoassay with direct chemiluminescence method.
Results: There was a positive correlation (r=0.539) between cervical progesterone levels with plasma progesterone levels in the preterm labor group. There was no correlation between cervical progesterone levels with plasma progesterone levels in the normal pregnancy group.
Conclusion: This study showed that cervical progesterone levels could be measured through cervical mucus. A significant positive correlation was found by this study between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels in the preterm labor group. This study is expected to provide new insights for understanding the metabolism and the role of progesterone in maintaining cervical integrity during pregnancy, and its relation to prevention of preterm birth.

Keywords

Cervical, Progesteron

Corresponding author: Yuyun Lisnawati

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work is supported by Hibah PITTA 2018 funded by DRPM Universitas Indonesia No.5000/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Lisnawati Y and Wibowo N. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Lisnawati Y and Wibowo N. Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 8:189 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.2) First published: 15 Feb 2019, 8:189 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.1) Latest published: 25 Oct 2022, 8:189 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have made several changes in version 2 of our manuscript. The first two changes are the changes in our title and authors. First, we changed our title to avoid misunderstanding due to language barrier. Second, due to certain reasons and mutually agreed upon between us, Ms. Mariana did not include her name as the author of this study.
Afterward, we have made significant changes to our manuscript. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the results were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue. Moreover, there are some detailed additional description to our method and results. There are also some comparisons with similar research done in other countries. We have acknowledged that there were some limitations to our study, of which we addressed at the later part of our manuscript. We have also acknowledged that our previous conclusions was an overstatement. Thus, we have revised the conclusion according to our results. We would like to thank the editors and reviewers who have given tremendous input to our manuscript. Finally, we would also like to thank the readers who have seen our manuscript and given their opinion directly to the authors.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Pei F. Lai
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Charles Bitamazire Businge

Introduction

Preterm birth contributes to various long and short-term complications to neonatal health problems. The incidence of preterm birth has not shown a significant decline. About a decade ago, the incidence of preterm birth was reported around 12–13% in United States and 5–11% in developed countries^1,2. Meanwhile, the rate of preterm birth is 15.5% in Indonesia. Indonesia is also included in the list of 10 countries with the highest preterm births according to the World Health Organization 2013³.

The hormone progesterone maintains the continuity of pregnancy in order to prevent preterm labor and preterm delivery. Progesterone is a steroid hormone which has an important role of maintaining uterine quiescence until the pregnancy reaches term. A previous study stated that circulatory progesterone level in humans remains stable until placenta is born. Nevertheless, the role of progesterone in the onset of labor is still believed to occur through an indirect mechanism called “functional progesterone withdrawal”^4,5.

Circulation of progesterone hormones may enter the peripheral tissue such as salivary glands and cervix. Progesterone regulation also occurs in uterus and cervix. Uterus produces 5α-reductase enzyme and 20α-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase enzyme (20α-HSD) which converts progesterone into inactive metabolites and decreases the uterine quiescence⁶. Mahendroo et al. (1999) showed that in the uterus of full-term rat with 5α-reductase deficiency, the uterus remains to contract although delivery does not happen because there is no cervix maturation process⁶.

Andersson et al. (2008) showed that during pregnancy, cervical glandular epithelial cells produce 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17β-HSD) type 2 enzyme that converts estradiol to estrone and 20α-hydroxyprogesterone (20αP) to progesterone⁷. Approaching the delivery, regulation of 17β-HSD type 2 decreases and creates a state that supports cervical maturation. The data on that study supported the idea that cervical maturation and myometrial contraction in labor involve regulation of progesterone in the cervix and uterus through the complex relationship between cervical epithelial, stromal, and myometrium⁷. Other studies also explored the possibility of tissue progesterone receptor expression and function changes becoming the reason of the functional progesterone withdrawal⁸.

Progesterone plasma level is widely studied to monitor the function of the corpus luteum in secretory phase and the beginning of pregnancy. In later pregnancy, progesterone level monitoring is only done for individuals with a high risk of having abortus or preterm delivery, although the effectivity of its application in clinical practice remains controversial⁹.

Assumption about the reduced quantity of plasma progesterone before delivery are now widely questioned. Currently, the role that progesterone plays before delivery is described as “progesterone functional withdrawal” theory. Prior studies mention that there is progesterone regulation in the cervix, which contributes to preserve cervical integrity as well as cervical maturation^6,7. It is assumed that cervical progesterone levels reflect the target organ’s progesterone activity, i.e. the cervix, better than circulatory progesterone. Therefore, measuring cervical mucus progesterone during normal pregnancy and preterm delivery pregnancy is a feasible study to show the significance of the test.

This study aims to investigate the correlation between cervical progesterone level and plasma progesterone level in both normal pregnancy and pregnancy with preterm labor. Based on previous studies, it was expected that a positive correlation would be found between the two measurements on both study groups.

Methods

Study design

This study was a cross-sectional correlation study conducted in January 2010 until September 2010 at Persahabatan General Hospital Jakarta, Indonesia.

Participants

The participants of this study were women with 28^th – 34^th weeks of pregnancy and singleton fetus. They were divided into 2 groups, namely the normal pregnancy and preterm labor groups. The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) pregnant women on 28^th – 34^th weeks of pregnancy with singleton fetus, (2) Preterm labor group subjects had a minimum of 4 contractions in 20 minutes that was proved by cardiotocography, without amniotic membrane ruptured or blood mucus in cervix, (3) Normal pregnancy group subjects were pregnant women with matched age and gestational age who had no contraction history during this pregnancy (4) subject willing to take part in research and signed informed consent. The exclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) not willing to be a participant in this study (2) having fetal membrane rupture which was proved by history taking and speculum inspection (3) having uterine of cervical pathology (leiomyoma, cervical cancer) which were proved by history taking and physical examination.

The sample size was derived from the correlations study sample size formula ${(\frac{Z α + Z β}{0, 5 \times [\ln (1 + r) / (1 - r)]})}^{2} + 3$ . A sample of at least 12 subjects in each subgroup is estimated to be needed in order to detect a moderate correlation (r = 0.75) with 80% power and 5% confidence limit. Based on this calculation, we enrolled 72 participants, 36 subjects in the normal pregnancy group and 36 subjects in the preterm labor group.

Data collection

The written informed consent was signed by the patient and the partner. After the patients signed the approval sheet, history taking and speculum examination were performed to ensure that there was no additional pathology on the cervix. Afterward, venous blood (5 mL) was collected from patients to measure progesterone plasma and cervical. The blood samples were centrifuged on 1,000 g for 15 minutes to obtain the plasma/serum.

Cervical mucus was collected using prism-shaped MQA ophthalmic sponge which was supported by previous study by Philip et al. (2004)¹⁰. The speculum was inserted inside the vagina on lithotomy position to visualize the cervix with enough lighting to inspect. The ophthalmic sponge was hold on the base of the prism using long forceps/tweezers and collection of cervical mucus was performed by inserting the ophthalmic sponge into the external orifice of the uterus and holding still for 60 seconds until the sponge absorbs the mucus. The sponge was removed gently and put inside a storage tube, a neutral vacuum tube filled with 1 mL of 0,9% NaCl to store the specimen. The tube was put inside a cooler (2–8°C) within 30 minutes of collection to prevent contamination and the tube was put inside a freezer within 4 hours after collection. Before processing, samples were centrifuged at 16,000 g to obtain the supernatant (to separate sample from sponge).

The plasma blood and cervical mucus progesterone levels were measured using The Advia Centaur® Progesterone kit, which is a commercial immunoassay with direct chemiluminescence method. The samples were diluted with 1:10 dilution for quantifying the progesterone concentration. This kit had 0.21 µg/L (0.67 nmol/L) analytical sensitivity. The score used in the analysis were between 0.21 μg/L to 60.00 μg/L.

Statistical analysis

After all the necessary data was collected, the data was coded on pre-arranged coding sheets by the principal investigator. Statistical analyses and data entry were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20.0. We performed statistical analysis using a Spearman test for measures the correlation or the strength of association between cervical progesterone level and plasma progesterone level in normal pregnancy group and the preterm labor group. The results were presented in tables and figures.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by The Research Ethics Committee of Persahabatan General Hospital (approval number 01/Diklit-RSP/Kom.Etik/II/2010). The research proposal was submitted and reviewed by the Research Committee, whereby permission was granted to conduct the research. A written letter of consent was submitted to the health institution to seek permission to conduct this study. Privacy and confidentiality of the subjects' information was done through the use of data collection with coded identification numbers. All prospective subjects received an explanation from the main researcher and additional researchers regarding the procedures for conducting research. The decision to follow or refuse to follow the research was taken by informed consent. All data will be kept confidential and the subject had the right to know all the results of the examination carried out.

Results

This study enrolled a total of 72 pregnant women who met the study criteria. They were divided into two groups: 36 women in the normal pregnancy group and 36 women in the preterm labor group. Table 1 showed that there were no significant differences in age distribution, gestational age, education level, and working status between groups.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Variables		Group		P
Variables		Normal	Preterm	P
Age (years) Mean (SD)		32 (6)	29 (7)	0.107*
Gestational age (week)	28–30	12 (50)	12 (50)	1.000
n (%)	30–32	12 (50)	12 (50)
	32–34	12 (50)	12 (50)
Education Level	High School	26 (72.2)	29 (80,6)	0.405
n (%)	University	10 (27.8)	7 (19.4)
Work	Yes	14 (38.9)	10 (27.8)	0.317
n (%)	No	22 (61.1)	26 (72.2)

Chi Square test; Unpaired T-test*

Table 2 shows that the median of the cervical progesterone level of normal pregnancy group was 1.74 ng/ml, which is lower than preterm labor group (median: 1.91 ng/ml). The range of progesterone levels in the preterm labor group was greater than in normal group. Plasma progesterone levels in both groups had normal data distribution. Mean value of normal pregnancy group was 174.52 ± 59.11 ng/ml, lower than preterm labor group (195.10 ± 82.21 ng/ml). However, the differences of both cervical and plasma progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor subjects were not significant (p > 0.05).

Table 2. Cervical and plasma progesterone levels of normal pregnancy and preterm labor.

Variables	Group
Variables	Normal	Preterm Labor	P
Cervical progesterone (ng/mL)			00.485*
Med (min-max)	1.74 (0.99-5.74)	1.91 (0.37-13.72)
Plasma progesterone (ng/mL)			0.476*
Med (min-max)	164.32 (81.10-294.89)	170.23 (59.65-390.19)

*Mann Whitney test

The correlation between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy group were shown using a scatter plot graph (Figure 1). Although schematically there was a trend of increasing relationship between cervical and plasma progesterone levels, the statistical test proved that there was no correlation between the two tests (p=0.251; r=0.196). The correlation between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels was significant in the preterm labor group compared to the normal group (Figure 2). The test showed a moderate correlation between the two tests (p=0.001; r=0.539). This result indicated that elevated level of cervical progesterone was directly proportional to plasma progesterone level.

Figure 1. Correlation between cervical progesterone level and plasma progesterone level in normal pregnancy group.

Spearman correlation r = 0.196; p value = 0.251.

Figure 2. Correlation between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels in preterm labor pregnancy group.

Spearman correlation r = 0.539; p = 0.001

Discussion

As a pregnancy hormone, progesterone is not only metabolized in circulation, but also in the uterus. Previous studies have proven the existence of local regulation of progesterone in uterus and cervix. Full-term uterus produces an enzyme that convert progesterone into inactive metabolites and decreases the uterine quiescence^6,7. In this study, the cervical progesterone level could be measured through the cervical mucus, which was collected using a prism-shaped ophthalmic sponge. However, the range of the data was quite large, especially in the preterm labor group with a median of 1.91 (0.37-13.72) ng/ml. Meanwhile, the serum progesterone level had a median of 170.23 (59.65-390.19) ng/mL. It was lower compared to other studies such as one performed by Smith et al. (2009)¹¹. Some of the possible causes of this abnormal data distribution were race difference and bias which could occur in data collection and analysis. The presence of cervical local factors (such as clinical or subclinical infection) might affect the regulation of progesterone. However, it was not explored in this study.

Progesterone is a hormone that plays a dominant role to keep the uterus quiescence during pregnancy. Circulatory progesterone level in humans remains elevated until birth, which refers to the notion of a "functional progesterone withdrawal”, which occurs before delivery. The definition may also apply to cervical progesterone. Progesterone is inactivated by local regulation of the cervix, not by the quantity of the progesterone hormone. The study by Andersson et al. was one of the studies that proved the existence of progesterone inactivation in the uterus and cervix before delivery⁷. Using immunohistochemical methods and quantitative real-time PCR, this study proved the existence of elevation of 20α-hydroxyprogesterone (20αP), an inactive metabolite of progesterone, just before delivery. This elevation was allegedly caused by decreasing concentrations of 17β-HSD type 2 enzyme in endocervical epithelial cells⁷. However, the method that we used was different from the methods above. We tried to measure progesterone level from cervical mucus by using competitive immunoassay with direct chemiluminescence method.

In the present study, cervical progesterone levels in the normal group were lower than the preterm labor group. These results were inversely related to the expected hypothesis where cervical progesterone levels in preterm labor group were expected to be lower than the normal pregnancy group. However, the difference between groups were not significant. It is in contrast with other studies as ones performed by Romero et al. (2016) or EPPPIC group (2021), in which the progesterone was used as a prophylaxis for preterm labor^12,13. It is suspected that the small sample size and other factors presenting during the examination influenced the results of this study.

The hypothesis of our study, which was based on the assumption that the cervical mucus was similar with saliva and the study conducted by Connor et al. in which it was stated that salivary progesterone concentrations between 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy were lower in pregnant women who experienced delivery before 34 weeks of gestation compared to pregnant women who experienced delivery after 37 weeks, were not proven in this study¹⁴. The salivary progesterone levels in the study by Connor et al. were measured serially, while in this study progesterone level were measured one-time. Therefore, to get better data, serial measurements of cervical progesterone level using a good method in the pregnancy group might be needed¹⁴.

High cervical progesterone levels in the preterm labor group in the present study might be caused by an increase of progesterone metabolites in the cervix due to infection process. Infection rates contributed more than 30% as a cause of preterm labor. Mahendroo et al. showed conversion of progesterone into inactive metabolites by cervical enzymes before delivery in pregnant rats⁶. Using radioimmunoassay examination technique (RIA), this study detected conversion of progesterone into 5a-pregnan-3,20-dione by steroid 5a-reductase, into 4-pregnen-20a-ol-3-one by 20a-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase and into 5a-pregnan-3a, 20a-diol by the combined action of two enzymes with 3a-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase. This present study used a competitive immunoassay technique with direct chemiluminescence method which did not differentiate active progesterone to its inactive metabolite produced in the cervix. Detected progesterone level in cervical mucus possibly includes progesterone and its inactive metabolites and therefore did not reflect the actual activity of cervical progesterone. However, an additional assays with other kit was not performed in this study. Therefore, additional examination with different kits would be beneficial for future studies. Another explanation to the higher progesterone level in our preterm group was the increased metabolism of progesterone in the uterus and cervix¹⁵. However, it could not be proven in our study as the metabolism was not measured.

In the normal pregnancy group, although schematically there was a trend of increasing relationship between cervical and plasma progesterone level, the result generated by the correlation test showed that there was no significant correlation with weak strength. Different results were obtained in the preterm labor group: the relationship between cervical progesterone and plasma progesterone were more visible and the result obtained from the test showed a significant relationship as well as moderate correlation strength (r=0.539). This result indicated that the elevation of cervical progesterone level in the preterm labor group was directly proportional to plasma progesterone levels. Differences occurred in both groups require further study.

The limitation of this study was its small sample size and several possible confounding variables which might affect the results of the study. Was the result influenced by the regulation of local progesterone that occurs in the cervix? As known from previous studies, the regulation of cervical progesterone during pregnancy was different than before delivery. Would inflammation/infection in the cervix influences cervical and plasma progesterone level? There were some factors which might be controlled in future studies. Moreover, a one-time sample collection was also thought to be possible factor influencing the results of both groups.

Conclusion

Cervical progesterone levels can measured through the cervical mucus. A significant positive correlation was only found between cervical progesterone level with plasma progesterone level in the preterm labor group.

Data availability

Underlying data

Open Science Framework: Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YDM9P¹¹.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgements

This work was performed at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Persahabatan General Hospital Jakarta, Indonesia. The authors wish to thank all staff at the Persahabatan General Hospital Jakarta for supporting us regarding this study

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, et al.: Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008; 371(9606): 75–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Wen SW, Smith G, Yang Q, et al.: Epidemiology of preterm birth and neonatal outcome. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 9(6): 429–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. World Health Organization (WHO): Preterm birth. 2018; [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Reference Source
4. Norwitz ER, Robinson JN, Challis JR: The control of labor. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9): 660–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Sfakianaki AK, Norwitz ER: Mechanisms of progesterone action in inhibiting prematurity. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006; 19(12): 763–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Mahendroo MS, Porter A, Russell DW, et al.: The parturition defect in steroid 5alpha-reductase type 1 knockout mice is due to impaired cervical ripening. Mol Endocrinol. 1999; 13(6): 981–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Andersson S, Minjarez D, Yost NP, et al.: Estrogen and progesterone metabolism in the cervix during pregnancy and parturition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93(6): 2366–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Goldman S, Weiss A, Almalah I, et al.: Progesterone receptor expression in human decidua and fetal membranes before and after contractions: possible mechanism for functional progesterone withdrawal. Mol Hum Reprod. 2005; 11(4): 269–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Thornton JG: Progesterone and preterm labor--still no definite answers. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(5): 499–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Castle PE, Rodriguez AC, Bowman FP, et al.: Comparison of ophthalmic sponges for measurements of immune markers from cervical secretions. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004; 11(2): 399–405. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Smith R, Smith JI, Shen X, et al.: Patterns of plasma corticotropin-releasing hormone, progesterone, estradiol, and estriol change and the onset of human labor. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 94(6): 2066–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Romero R, Nicolaides KH, Conde-Agudelo A, et al.: Vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation in women with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix: an updated meta-analysis including data from the OPPTIMUM study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(3): 308–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm Birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From Randomized Controlled Trials. Obstet Anesth Dig. 2022; 42: 36–7.
14. Connor ML, Sanford LM, Howland BE: Saliva progesterone throughout the menstrual cycle and late pregnancy. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1982; 60(3): 410–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Patil AS, Gaikwad NW, Grotegut CA, et al.: Alterations in endogenous progesterone metabolism associated with spontaneous very preterm delivery. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020(2): hoaa007. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 15 Feb 2019

Author details Author details

Yuyun Lisnawati
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Noroyono Wibowo
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work is supported by Hibah PITTA 2018 funded by DRPM Universitas Indonesia No.5000/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 25 Oct 2022, 8:189

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.2

version 1

Published: 15 Feb 2019, 8:189

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.1

© 2022 Lisnawati Y and Wibowo N. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Lisnawati Y and Wibowo N. Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2022, 8:189 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17525.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 25 Oct 2022

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Sep 2024

Yiming Chen, Department of the Fourth School of Clinical Medical, Department of Prenatal and Screening Center, Hangzhou Women's Hospital (Hangzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital), Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139326.r306019

Dear
Yuyun Lisnawati

I am honored to be involved in reviewing manuscripts for your journal. The authors of the manuscript Title: Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study (ID: F1KR00CDE F1R-VER139326-R) present an informative article with their work. The objective of this study was to measure cervical mucus progesterone levels and its correlation to plasma progesterone levels in pregnancy. A total of 72 subjects who met the criteria were divided into normal pregnancy group and preterm labor group. The cervical and plasma progesterone levels were measured using The Advia Centaur® Progesterone kit, which is a commercial immunoassay with direct chemiluminescence method. This study showed that cervical progesterone levels could be measured through cervical mucus. A significant positive correlation was found by this study between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels in the preterm labor group.
Although the study is innovative, there are limitations in the data presented that would preclude a meaningful conclusion from being reached. In addition, the design of the study is not standardized, the statistical methods are not scientific, the content is simplistic, and the writing is not standardized, so it is not recommended for indexing.
Here are my few comments below:

The differences of both cervical and plasma progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor subjects were not significant (P > 0.05), which suggested that progesterone testing in the preterm labor group is of little significance. There was a correlation between cervical progesterone levels with plasma progesterone levels in the preterm labor group, but R=0.539, which can only be described as a slight correlation. Validation after increasing the sample size is suggested to enhance the actual clinical significance.
Please explain how the sample size of 72 cases was determined. Were the two groups of cases matched or unmatched? Because the statistical methods used after matching or non-matching will be different, the results may be quite different.
There was a lack of a description of whether the data were tested for normal distribution, for example, the progesterone levels in Table 2 should have been tested for normality of the data, and if they were normally distributed it is recommended to express them in terms of mean±standard deviation (±s). If the distribution is skewed, the median and percentile [M (P₅, P₉₅)] is recommended.
There exist some inconsistencies: for example, in the results section of the main text: “Mean value of normal pregnancy group was 174.52 ± 59.11 ng/ml, lower than preterm labor group (195.10 ± 82.21 ng/ml).” while in the discussion section: “Meanwhile, the serum progesterone level had a median of 170.23 (59.65-390.19) ng/mL”
There are limitations in the data presented, and the unstandardized research design and the unscientific statistics methods would preclude a meaningful conclusion from being reached.
It is suggested to add the latest relevant references.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Chief Technician, Master's supervisor in clinical laboratory diagnosis. More than 105 papers have been published in journals such as Journal of Clinica Chimica Acta, among which 26 are SCI articles.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 15 Feb 2019

Views

Reviewer Report 21 Mar 2022

Charles Bitamazire Businge, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19166.r127213

The authors need to clearly state their hypothesis or study aims. They simply stated that measuring cervical mucus progesterone during normal pregnancy and preterm delivery pregnancy needs to be explored.

In paragraph six of the introduction, they noted that “It is assumed that cervical progesterone levels reflect the target organ’s progesterone activity, i.e., the cervix, better than circulatory progesterone”. Hence there seems to be an implied hypothesis that cervical progesterone among women with preterm labour will be lower than that of controls with normal pregnancy. However, the title of their research and the statistical approach used to calculate the sample size do not match with this implied aim/hypothesis. In the discussion, they did not put much emphasis on the correlation between serum and cervical progesterone (as the title suggests) but dwelt more on the difference between the measured levels of cervical progesterone of women with and without preterm birth. This mismatch needs to be addressed.

Also, in the introduction, the authors rightly observed that “Assumption about the reduced quantity of plasma progesterone before delivery is now widely questioned. Currently, the role that progesterone plays before delivery is described as “progesterone functional withdrawal” theory.” If their aim was to confirm or refute the hypothesis that it is the absolute reduction of progesterone in cervical stroma instead of ‘functional progesterone withdrawal’ that is crucial in the process of preterm labour, this needs to be clearly stated. In this case, they will use the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the serum progesterone levels and the cervical progesterone levels of the two groups (since the data is not normally distributed). They can then correlate the cervical and serum levels of each group as a secondary aim. This can then be followed by an appropriate discussion of the results as they relate to the aim of the study.

The unexpectedly higher levels of serum and cervical progesterone observed by the authors may be due to chance alone given the small sample size. Several related studies have reported that low serum progesterone is associated with preterm labour (Ku et al., 2018¹; Pratama et al., 2020²).

Despite having high serum and cervical progesterone, some women may be at increased risk of preterm labour due to increased metabolism of progesterone in the target tissues (Patil et al., 2020³) or other mechanisms.

The authors concluded that their study was expected to provide new insights for understanding the metabolism and the role of progesterone in maintaining cervical integrity during pregnancy, and its relation to the prevention of preterm birth. However, there is no data from their study to support this statement.

Several sentences require editing so as to improve on clarity.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Ku CW, Allen JC, Lek SM, Chia ML, et al.: Serum progesterone distribution in normal pregnancies compared to pregnancies complicated by threatened miscarriage from 5 to 13 weeks gestation: a prospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18 (1): 360 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Pratama MR, Lubis Y, Lubis MP, Pasaribu HP: Comparison of serum progresterone level in preterm labor and normal pregnancy. JETIR. 2020; 7 (3): 227-231 Reference Source
3. Patil AS, Gaikwad NW, Grotegut CA, Dowden SD, et al.: Alterations in endogenous progesterone metabolism associated with spontaneous very preterm delivery.Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020 (2): hoaa007 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Obstetrics and Gynaecology, public health, micronutrients and cardiovascular disease

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

25 Oct 2022

Author Response

1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem ... Continue reading 1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem and made the changes accordingly

3. The additional statistical test was performed in our study. However, there were no significant difference of both cervical and serum progesterone between study groups. We have also added the discussion to our discussion part.

4-5. Added to the respective section.

6. We are also aware to the issue. The statement has been omitted.

7. Various grammatical errors and confusing sentences were altered accordingly.

We hope that our response will sufficiently address your concern toward our manuscript. If you have any other comment or recommendation, please let us know. We thank you once again for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Yuyun Lisnawati
1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem and made the changes accordingly

3. The additional statistical test was performed in our study. However, there were no significant difference of both cervical and serum progesterone between study groups. We have also added the discussion to our discussion part.

4-5. Added to the respective section.

6. We are also aware to the issue. The statement has been omitted.

7. Various grammatical errors and confusing sentences were altered accordingly.

We hope that our response will sufficiently address your concern toward our manuscript. If you have any other comment or recommendation, please let us know. We thank you once again for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Yuyun Lisnawati
Competing Interests: There was no competing interests to be disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

25 Oct 2022

Author Response

1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem ... Continue reading 1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem and made the changes accordingly

3. The additional statistical test was performed in our study. However, there were no significant difference of both cervical and serum progesterone between study groups. We have also added the discussion to our discussion part.

4-5. Added to the respective section.

6. We are also aware to the issue. The statement has been omitted.

7. Various grammatical errors and confusing sentences were altered accordingly.

We hope that our response will sufficiently address your concern toward our manuscript. If you have any other comment or recommendation, please let us know. We thank you once again for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Yuyun Lisnawati
1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem and made the changes accordingly

3. The additional statistical test was performed in our study. However, there were no significant difference of both cervical and serum progesterone between study groups. We have also added the discussion to our discussion part.

4-5. Added to the respective section.

6. We are also aware to the issue. The statement has been omitted.

7. Various grammatical errors and confusing sentences were altered accordingly.

We hope that our response will sufficiently address your concern toward our manuscript. If you have any other comment or recommendation, please let us know. We thank you once again for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Yuyun Lisnawati
Competing Interests: There was no competing interests to be disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Jul 2021

Pei F. Lai, Division of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19166.r89602

In this article, the authors highlight that cervical progesterone action during human preterm labour is best characterised by profiling the local (rather systemic) availability of this steroid in pregnant women, which is attributed to the concept of functional progesterone withdrawal. Their aim was to determine whether the correlation in progesterone concentration between maternal peripheral blood plasma and cervical mucus is different between non-labouring and preterm labouring women, when analysed at 28-34 weeks of gestation.

The effort made to obtain preterm gestation-matched samples for comparison of non-labouring and labouring women was good. However, the authors need to present more measurements with statistical analyses for their sample groups to sufficiently establish the extent to which local (cervical) progesterone is more important than circulating (blood) progesterone in the manifestation of preterm labour. The relevance of their findings to the clinical efficacy of progesterone prophylaxis for preterm labour prevention (evaluated by several published clinical studies, refer to Romero et al., 2016¹ and EPPPIC Group, 2021²) also requires more detailed consideration to improve the article.

Additionally, comments for each section of the article are as follows:

Introduction:

Localised regulation of progesterone metabolism is only one possibility for how functional progesterone withdrawal is mediated. The other (relatively more explored) possibility involves changes in tissue progesterone receptor expression/function irrespective of ligand concentration; this should be acknowledged with the inclusion of relevant references, though only needs to be mentioned briefly because it was not the focus of the authors’ study.
It would be helpful to explicitly state the hypothesis of the study in the Introduction (rather than give it first mention in the Discussion).

Methods:

For the participant inclusion/exclusion criteria, please state whether tocolytics or steroids were administered prior to sample collection. Please also describe the method used to confirm absence of fetal membrane rupture.
Further detail should be added to Table 1 to make the data more valuable for potential future integration with similar datasets from other sources. For example, gravida, parity, ethnicity, body mass index, history of preterm birth, type of preterm labour (e.g. idiopathic, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis), Bishop score at time of sampling, gestation at fetal delivery, and mode of fetal delivery.
Please include a citation for the power calculation formula, to explain what each factor in the calculation represents (to help with interpretation by those who are unfamiliar with this specific formula).
The “300 rpm” centrifugation speed (in first paragraph of the ‘Data collection’ section) needs to be converted to standard relative centrifugal force (g unit).
Please state whether the blood serum or cervical mucus samples needed to be diluted prior to use at the immunoassay for quantifying their progesterone concentrations; also include mention of any control samples that were used to evaluate assay accuracy.

Results:

It is stated in the Methods section that “To anticipate differences in progesterone levels every week of gestational age, subgroup analysis was carried out based on gestational age” – this subgroup consideration is not shown in the data presented, despite it being a good approach. The authors need to either include their findings from this subgroup analysis or explain why they decided not to proceed with it.
Figures 1 and 2 show that progesterone concentrations, in both blood plasma and cervical mucus, for the two participant groups of interest were within very similar ranges to each other; this is in agreement with median values presented in Table 2. Can the authors comment on whether the wider min-max range for cervical mucus samples from the preterm labour group (shown in Table 2) was mostly attributed to the six samples that contained >6 ng/mL progesterone (shown in Figure 2)? Was there anything clinically distinct about these six women, when compared to the other 30 women in the preterm labour group?

Discussion & Conclusion:

Possible explanations for abnormal data distribution for both participant groups are good. Can the authors add further comment with regards to possibility of infection for both groups of participants, especially whether it was a consideration for their inclusion/exclusion criteria for participant selection?
Progesterone concentration in blood plasma from preterm pregnant women has been quantified in previous studies (e.g. Smith et al., 2009³). The authors should add depth to their discussion by commenting on how comparable their dataset is to these previous studies; with consideration of any differences in participant demographics, clinical observations and sampling methodology.
In the third paragraph, the authors should be more cautious about their interpretation of differences in cervical progesterone concentration between their preterm labour and normal pregnancy groups, especially because they did not present statistical analysis outcome for the corresponding data (Table 2) that shows notable overlap of min-max ranges.

The authors should provide any technical information regarding cross-reactivity of the immunoassay (in the Methods section), which would help to judge to what extent we should be concerned about “Detected progesterone level in cervical mucus possibly includes progesterone and its inactive metabolites and therefore did not reflect the actual activity of cervical progesterone” (fourth paragraph). Additional assays (ideally using either a different immunoassay kit or methodology) with control samples (of metabolites) should have been undertaken to ascertain accuracy of progesterone quantification, where high cross-reactivity with its metabolites was likely to occur.

The following sentence needs correcting: “Thus, the elevation of plasma progesterone levels was not followed by elevation in plasma progesterone level” (fifth paragraph).
The last sentence of the Conclusion is an overstatement until more observations and findings are added to the article. If samples are still available for use, the authors should consider acquiring data for quantification of specific progesterone metabolites (such as those identified in references 6 and 7) to assess whether preterm labour is associated with changes in their concentrations more at the cervix than maternal blood.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

References

1. Romero R, Nicolaides KH, Conde-Agudelo A, O'Brien JM, et al.: Vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation in women with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix: an updated meta-analysis including data from the OPPTIMUM study.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48 (3): 308-17 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. EPPPIC Group: Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials.Lancet. 2021; 397 (10280): 1183-1194 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Smith R, Smith JI, Shen X, Engel PJ, et al.: Patterns of plasma corticotropin-releasing hormone, progesterone, estradiol, and estriol change and the onset of human labor.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 94 (6): 2066-74 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Progesterone and cAMP signalling in human myometrium during pregnancy and labour, with specific interest in preterm labour.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

25 Oct 2022

Author Response

1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone ... Continue reading 1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the resuls were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue.

2. Added to the introduction section

3. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

4. In this study, the tests were performed prior to the tocolytics or steroid administration to ensure that those would not become confounding factors. Furthermore, the absence of fetal membrane rupture was proved by ultrasound examination. Added to the inclusion / exclusion criteria.

5. We agree to the comment. However, we are very sorry to tell you that the details to our demographic characteristics is currently very limited. Therefore, it cannot be added to Table 1.

6. Our calculation was based on the assumption that a moderate correlation would have moderate correlation with serum progesterone. We have changed the section accordingly.

7-8. Revised accordingly.

9. We are very sorry for the mistake in our wording. The sentence has been omitted as the correct process was the normal pregnancy group subjects were matched for age and gestational age to the preterm labor group.

10. We have also observed the phenomenon in our previous discussion. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the subjects and other subjects.

11. Added to the discussion section, especially on the infection being one of the confounding factors in this study.

12-13. Added to the respective section.

14. We are aware of the issue. However, there was no additional examination performed with the same sample. Therefore, we can only explain the issue as a limitation to our study and it should be performed in future studies.

15. Omitted.

16. We agree that the later part of our conclusion is an overstatement. Therefore, it was omitted
1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the resuls were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue.

2. Added to the introduction section

3. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

4. In this study, the tests were performed prior to the tocolytics or steroid administration to ensure that those would not become confounding factors. Furthermore, the absence of fetal membrane rupture was proved by ultrasound examination. Added to the inclusion / exclusion criteria.

5. We agree to the comment. However, we are very sorry to tell you that the details to our demographic characteristics is currently very limited. Therefore, it cannot be added to Table 1.

6. Our calculation was based on the assumption that a moderate correlation would have moderate correlation with serum progesterone. We have changed the section accordingly.

7-8. Revised accordingly.

9. We are very sorry for the mistake in our wording. The sentence has been omitted as the correct process was the normal pregnancy group subjects were matched for age and gestational age to the preterm labor group.

10. We have also observed the phenomenon in our previous discussion. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the subjects and other subjects.

11. Added to the discussion section, especially on the infection being one of the confounding factors in this study.

12-13. Added to the respective section.

14. We are aware of the issue. However, there was no additional examination performed with the same sample. Therefore, we can only explain the issue as a limitation to our study and it should be performed in future studies.

15. Omitted.

16. We agree that the later part of our conclusion is an overstatement. Therefore, it was omitted
Competing Interests: The authors stated that there was no conflict interest to be disclosed Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

25 Oct 2022

Author Response

1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone ... Continue reading 1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the resuls were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue.

2. Added to the introduction section

3. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

4. In this study, the tests were performed prior to the tocolytics or steroid administration to ensure that those would not become confounding factors. Furthermore, the absence of fetal membrane rupture was proved by ultrasound examination. Added to the inclusion / exclusion criteria.

5. We agree to the comment. However, we are very sorry to tell you that the details to our demographic characteristics is currently very limited. Therefore, it cannot be added to Table 1.

6. Our calculation was based on the assumption that a moderate correlation would have moderate correlation with serum progesterone. We have changed the section accordingly.

7-8. Revised accordingly.

9. We are very sorry for the mistake in our wording. The sentence has been omitted as the correct process was the normal pregnancy group subjects were matched for age and gestational age to the preterm labor group.

10. We have also observed the phenomenon in our previous discussion. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the subjects and other subjects.

11. Added to the discussion section, especially on the infection being one of the confounding factors in this study.

12-13. Added to the respective section.

14. We are aware of the issue. However, there was no additional examination performed with the same sample. Therefore, we can only explain the issue as a limitation to our study and it should be performed in future studies.

15. Omitted.

16. We agree that the later part of our conclusion is an overstatement. Therefore, it was omitted
1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the resuls were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue.

2. Added to the introduction section

3. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

4. In this study, the tests were performed prior to the tocolytics or steroid administration to ensure that those would not become confounding factors. Furthermore, the absence of fetal membrane rupture was proved by ultrasound examination. Added to the inclusion / exclusion criteria.

5. We agree to the comment. However, we are very sorry to tell you that the details to our demographic characteristics is currently very limited. Therefore, it cannot be added to Table 1.

6. Our calculation was based on the assumption that a moderate correlation would have moderate correlation with serum progesterone. We have changed the section accordingly.

7-8. Revised accordingly.

9. We are very sorry for the mistake in our wording. The sentence has been omitted as the correct process was the normal pregnancy group subjects were matched for age and gestational age to the preterm labor group.

10. We have also observed the phenomenon in our previous discussion. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the subjects and other subjects.

11. Added to the discussion section, especially on the infection being one of the confounding factors in this study.

12-13. Added to the respective section.

14. We are aware of the issue. However, there was no additional examination performed with the same sample. Therefore, we can only explain the issue as a limitation to our study and it should be performed in future studies.

15. Omitted.

16. We agree that the later part of our conclusion is an overstatement. Therefore, it was omitted
Competing Interests: The authors stated that there was no conflict interest to be disclosed Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 15 Feb 2019

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 25 Oct 22			read
Version 1 15 Feb 19	read	read

Pei F. Lai, Imperial College London, London, UK
Charles Bitamazire Businge, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa
Yiming Chen, Hangzhou Women's Hospital (Hangzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital), Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

16 Sep 2024 | for Version 2

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The differences of both cervical and plasma progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor subjects were not significant (P > 0.05), which suggested that progesterone testing in the preterm labor group is of little significance. There was a correlation between cervical progesterone levels with plasma progesterone levels in the preterm labor group, but R=0.539, which can only be described as a slight correlation. Validation after increasing the sample size is suggested to enhance the actual clinical significance.
Please explain how the sample size of 72 cases was determined. Were the two groups of cases matched or unmatched? Because the statistical methods used after matching or non-matching will be different, the results may be quite different.
There was a lack of a description of whether the data were tested for normal distribution, for example, the progesterone levels in Table 2 should have been tested for normality of the data, and if they were normally distributed it is recommended to express them in terms of mean±standard deviation (±s). If the distribution is skewed, the median and percentile [M (P₅, P₉₅)] is recommended.
There exist some inconsistencies: for example, in the results section of the main text: “Mean value of normal pregnancy group was 174.52 ± 59.11 ng/ml, lower than preterm labor group (195.10 ± 82.21 ng/ml).” while in the discussion section: “Meanwhile, the serum progesterone level had a median of 170.23 (59.65-390.19) ng/mL”
There are limitations in the data presented, and the unstandardized research design and the unscientific statistics methods would preclude a meaningful conclusion from being reached.
It is suggested to add the latest relevant references.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Chief Technician, Master's supervisor in clinical laboratory diagnosis. More than 105 papers have been published in journals such as Journal of Clinica Chimica Acta, among which 26 are SCI articles.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

21 Mar 2022 | for Version 1

Charles Bitamazire Businge, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha, South Africa

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Obstetrics and Gynaecology, public health, micronutrients and cardiovascular disease

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

1. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

2. We thank you for the comment toward our manuscript. We are also aware to the problem and made the changes accordingly

3. The additional statistical test was performed in our study. However, there were no significant difference of both cervical and serum progesterone between study groups. We have also added the discussion to our discussion part.

4-5. Added to the respective section.

6. We are also aware to the issue. The statement has been omitted.

7. Various grammatical errors and confusing sentences were altered accordingly.

We hope that our response will sufficiently address your concern toward our manuscript. If you have any other comment or recommendation, please let us know. We thank you once again for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Yuyun Lisnawati

View more View less

Competing Interests

There was no competing interests to be disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

18 Views

28 Jul 2021 | for Version 1

Pei F. Lai, Division of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, London, UK

18 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Localised regulation of progesterone metabolism is only one possibility for how functional progesterone withdrawal is mediated. The other (relatively more explored) possibility involves changes in tissue progesterone receptor expression/function irrespective of ligand concentration; this should be acknowledged with the inclusion of relevant references, though only needs to be mentioned briefly because it was not the focus of the authors’ study.
It would be helpful to explicitly state the hypothesis of the study in the Introduction (rather than give it first mention in the Discussion).

Methods:

For the participant inclusion/exclusion criteria, please state whether tocolytics or steroids were administered prior to sample collection. Please also describe the method used to confirm absence of fetal membrane rupture.
Further detail should be added to Table 1 to make the data more valuable for potential future integration with similar datasets from other sources. For example, gravida, parity, ethnicity, body mass index, history of preterm birth, type of preterm labour (e.g. idiopathic, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis), Bishop score at time of sampling, gestation at fetal delivery, and mode of fetal delivery.
Please include a citation for the power calculation formula, to explain what each factor in the calculation represents (to help with interpretation by those who are unfamiliar with this specific formula).
The “300 rpm” centrifugation speed (in first paragraph of the ‘Data collection’ section) needs to be converted to standard relative centrifugal force (g unit).
Please state whether the blood serum or cervical mucus samples needed to be diluted prior to use at the immunoassay for quantifying their progesterone concentrations; also include mention of any control samples that were used to evaluate assay accuracy.

Results:

It is stated in the Methods section that “To anticipate differences in progesterone levels every week of gestational age, subgroup analysis was carried out based on gestational age” – this subgroup consideration is not shown in the data presented, despite it being a good approach. The authors need to either include their findings from this subgroup analysis or explain why they decided not to proceed with it.
Figures 1 and 2 show that progesterone concentrations, in both blood plasma and cervical mucus, for the two participant groups of interest were within very similar ranges to each other; this is in agreement with median values presented in Table 2. Can the authors comment on whether the wider min-max range for cervical mucus samples from the preterm labour group (shown in Table 2) was mostly attributed to the six samples that contained >6 ng/mL progesterone (shown in Figure 2)? Was there anything clinically distinct about these six women, when compared to the other 30 women in the preterm labour group?

Discussion & Conclusion:

Possible explanations for abnormal data distribution for both participant groups are good. Can the authors add further comment with regards to possibility of infection for both groups of participants, especially whether it was a consideration for their inclusion/exclusion criteria for participant selection?
Progesterone concentration in blood plasma from preterm pregnant women has been quantified in previous studies (e.g. Smith et al., 2009³). The authors should add depth to their discussion by commenting on how comparable their dataset is to these previous studies; with consideration of any differences in participant demographics, clinical observations and sampling methodology.
In the third paragraph, the authors should be more cautious about their interpretation of differences in cervical progesterone concentration between their preterm labour and normal pregnancy groups, especially because they did not present statistical analysis outcome for the corresponding data (Table 2) that shows notable overlap of min-max ranges.

The authors should provide any technical information regarding cross-reactivity of the immunoassay (in the Methods section), which would help to judge to what extent we should be concerned about “Detected progesterone level in cervical mucus possibly includes progesterone and its inactive metabolites and therefore did not reflect the actual activity of cervical progesterone” (fourth paragraph). Additional assays (ideally using either a different immunoassay kit or methodology) with control samples (of metabolites) should have been undertaken to ascertain accuracy of progesterone quantification, where high cross-reactivity with its metabolites was likely to occur.

The following sentence needs correcting: “Thus, the elevation of plasma progesterone levels was not followed by elevation in plasma progesterone level” (fifth paragraph).
The last sentence of the Conclusion is an overstatement until more observations and findings are added to the article. If samples are still available for use, the authors should consider acquiring data for quantification of specific progesterone metabolites (such as those identified in references 6 and 7) to assess whether preterm labour is associated with changes in their concentrations more at the cervix than maternal blood.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Progesterone and cAMP signalling in human myometrium during pregnancy and labour, with specific interest in preterm labour.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

25 Oct 2022

Yuyun Lisnawati, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Persahabatan General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

1. We thank you for the comment and addition to our manuscript. We were also aware to the issues presented. We have added a comparison of both cervical and serum progesterone level between normal pregnancy and preterm labor. However, the resuls were not significant. We have also added the possible reason and the prior studies about the issue.

2. Added to the introduction section

3. The aim of the study and the hypothesis were added to the study.

4. In this study, the tests were performed prior to the tocolytics or steroid administration to ensure that those would not become confounding factors. Furthermore, the absence of fetal membrane rupture was proved by ultrasound examination. Added to the inclusion / exclusion criteria.

5. We agree to the comment. However, we are very sorry to tell you that the details to our demographic characteristics is currently very limited. Therefore, it cannot be added to Table 1.

6. Our calculation was based on the assumption that a moderate correlation would have moderate correlation with serum progesterone. We have changed the section accordingly.

7-8. Revised accordingly.

9. We are very sorry for the mistake in our wording. The sentence has been omitted as the correct process was the normal pregnancy group subjects were matched for age and gestational age to the preterm labor group.

10. We have also observed the phenomenon in our previous discussion. However, there were no clinically significant differences between the subjects and other subjects.

11. Added to the discussion section, especially on the infection being one of the confounding factors in this study.

12-13. Added to the respective section.

14. We are aware of the issue. However, there was no additional examination performed with the same sample. Therefore, we can only explain the issue as a limitation to our study and it should be performed in future studies.

15. Omitted.

16. We agree that the later part of our conclusion is an overstatement. Therefore, it was omitted

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors stated that there was no conflict interest to be disclosed

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, et al.: Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008; 371(9606): 75–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Wen SW, Smith G, Yang Q, et al.: Epidemiology of preterm birth and neonatal outcome. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 9(6): 429–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. World Health Organization (WHO): Preterm birth. 2018; [cited 2022 Sep 23]. Reference Source

[4] 4. Norwitz ER, Robinson JN, Challis JR: The control of labor. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9): 660–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Sfakianaki AK, Norwitz ER: Mechanisms of progesterone action in inhibiting prematurity. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006; 19(12): 763–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Mahendroo MS, Porter A, Russell DW, et al.: The parturition defect in steroid 5alpha-reductase type 1 knockout mice is due to impaired cervical ripening. Mol Endocrinol. 1999; 13(6): 981–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Andersson S, Minjarez D, Yost NP, et al.: Estrogen and progesterone metabolism in the cervix during pregnancy and parturition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93(6): 2366–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Goldman S, Weiss A, Almalah I, et al.: Progesterone receptor expression in human decidua and fetal membranes before and after contractions: possible mechanism for functional progesterone withdrawal. Mol Hum Reprod. 2005; 11(4): 269–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Thornton JG: Progesterone and preterm labor--still no definite answers. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(5): 499–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Castle PE, Rodriguez AC, Bowman FP, et al.: Comparison of ophthalmic sponges for measurements of immune markers from cervical secretions. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004; 11(2): 399–405. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Smith R, Smith JI, Shen X, et al.: Patterns of plasma corticotropin-releasing hormone, progesterone, estradiol, and estriol change and the onset of human labor. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009; 94(6): 2066–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Romero R, Nicolaides KH, Conde-Agudelo A, et al.: Vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth ≤ 34 weeks of gestation in women with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix: an updated meta-analysis including data from the OPPTIMUM study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(3): 308–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Evaluating Progestogens for Preventing Preterm Birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC): Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From Randomized Controlled Trials. Obstet Anesth Dig. 2022; 42: 36–7.

[14] 14. Connor ML, Sanford LM, Howland BE: Saliva progesterone throughout the menstrual cycle and late pregnancy. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1982; 60(3): 410–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Patil AS, Gaikwad NW, Grotegut CA, et al.: Alterations in endogenous progesterone metabolism associated with spontaneous very preterm delivery. Hum Reprod Open. 2020; 2020(2): hoaa007. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Correlation of cervical progesterone levels to plasma progesterone levels in normal pregnancy and preterm labor: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Study design

Participants

Data collection

Statistical analysis

Ethical considerations

Results

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Table 2. Cervical and plasma progesterone levels of normal pregnancy and preterm labor.

Figure 1. Correlation between cervical progesterone level and plasma progesterone level in normal pregnancy group.

Figure 2. Correlation between cervical progesterone levels and plasma progesterone levels in preterm labor pregnancy group.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated