Aim To evaluate associations between maternal characteristics and a short cervix in patients without history of preterm delivery, and to determine if these characteristics can predict the presence of a short cervix. Materials and methods This is a retrospective cohort study that included 18,592 women with singleton pregnancies without history of previous preterm deliveries who underwent universal transvaginal cervical length (TVCL) screening between 18 + 0 and 23 + 6 weeks/days of gestation. A short cervix was defined as a cervical length (CL) ≤25 mm, ≤20 mm, and ≤15 mm. Associations between maternal age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), previous term deliveries, and history of previous miscarriages, with a short cervix were evaluated using logistic regression models. Results The prevalence of a short cervix in our population was: CL ≤25 mm, 2.2% (n = 403); CL ≤20 mm, 1.2% (n = 224); and CL ≤15 mm, 0.9% (n = 161). Women with BMI >30 and/or previous abortions constituted 45.5% of the total population (8463/18,582). Significant associations with short cervix were observed for women with BMI ≥30, and for women with at least one previous abortion (p < .001). Parous women had a significantly lower association with a short cervix than nulliparous women (p < .001). Maternal age or height were not associated with a short cervix. Prediction of short cervix based on presence of any of the following: BMI ≥ 30 or previous abortions showed sensitivities of 55.8% (≤25 mm), 61.6% (≤20 mm), and 63.4% (≤15 mm) with similar specificity (50.1–54.6%) and likelihood ratio positive (1.2–1.5); and prediction based on BMI ≥ 30 and previous abortions showed sensitivities of 11.1% (≤25 mm), 14.7% (≤20 mm), and 16.7% (≤15 mm) with specificity 93%. Conclusions Among low risk women for spontaneous preterm delivery, those with a BMI ≥30 and/or previous miscarriages had a significantly increased risk for a short cervix at 18 + 0 and 23 + 6 weeks/days of gestation. Despite these significant associations, screening by maternal risk factors in a low risk population of pregnant women should not be an alternative to mid-trimester universal CL measurement.