Quantitative strain elastography of the uterine cervix assessed by the GE Voluson E10 system in combination with a force-measuring device

References

• Word RA, Li XH, Hnat M, et al. Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts. Semin Reprod Med. 2007;25(1):69–79. Jan
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, et al. The bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625–630. Sep
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hee L. Overview of the methods available for biomechanical testing of the uterine cervix in vivo. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(12):1219–1237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feltovich H, Carlson L. New techniques in evaluation of the cervix. Semin Perinatol. 2017;41(8):477–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruscalzo A, Mazza E, Feltovich H, et al. Cervical elastography during pregnancy: a critical review of current approaches with a focus on controversies and limitations. J Med Ultrason. 2016;43(4):493–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomsen CR, Jensen MSS, Leonhard AK, et al. A force-measuring device combined with ultrasound-based elastography for assessment of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(2):241–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuusela P, Jacobsson B, Hagberg H, et al. Second trimester transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length for prediction of preterm birth: a blinded prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study. BJOG. 2021;128(2):195–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Sonographic measurement of uterine cervix at 18–22 weeks’ gestation and the risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(6):902–907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies G, Ottenhof C, Woodman M, et al. Cervix length and relaxin as predictors of preterm birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(12):1124–1131.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National institute of child health and human development maternal fetal medicine unit network. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho MH, Bittar RE, Brizot ML, et al. Cervical length at 11–14 weeks’ and 22-24 weeks’ gestation evaluated by transvaginal sonography, and gestational age at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(2):135–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung TN, Pang MW, Leung TY, et al. Cervical length at 18–22 weeks of gestation for prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in Hong Kong Chinese women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26(7):713–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, et al. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(5):500–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uldbjerg N, Ekman G, Malmstrom A, et al. Ripening of the human uterine cervix related to changes in collagen, glycosaminoglycans, and collagenolytic activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;147(6):662–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Cervical assessment–protocol for measurement. Available from: https://fetalmedicine.org/cervical-assessment-1
   Google Scholar
• Myers K, Socrate S, Tzeranis D, et al. Changes in the biochemical constituents and morphologic appearance of the human cervical stroma during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(Suppl 1):S82–S9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulff CB, Rode L, Rosthoj S, et al. Transvaginal sonographic cervical length in first and second trimesters in a low-risk population: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):604–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iams JD, Cebrik D, Lynch C, et al. The rate of cervical change and the phenotype of spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(2):130.e1–130.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papastefanou I, Pilalis A, Kappou D, et al. Cervical length at 11–40 weeks: unconditional and conditional longitudinal reference ranges. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1376–1382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Diaz-Garcia C, Bernard JP, et al. Reference range for cervical length throughout pregnancy: non-parametric LMS-based model applied to a large sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(4):459–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundtoft I, Langhoff-Roos J, Sandager P, et al. Cervical collagen is reduced in non-pregnant women with a history of cervical insufficiency and a short cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(8):984–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange AP, Secher NJ, Westergaard JG, et al. Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;60(2):137–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hee L, Rasmussen CK, Schlutter JM, et al. Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix prior to induction of labor as a predictor of cervical dilation time. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(7):684–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson LC, Hall TJ, Rosado-Mendez IM, et al. Quantitative assessment of cervical softening during pregnancy with shear wave elasticity imaging: an in vivo longitudinal study. Interface Focus. 2019;9(5):20190030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masso P, Callejas A, Melchor J, et al. In vivo measurement of cervical elasticity on pregnant women by torsional wave technique: a preliminary study. Sensors. 2019;19(15):3249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchanda S, Vora Z, Sharma R, et al. Quantitative sonoelastographic assessment of the normal uterus using shear wave elastography: an initial experience. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(12):3183–3189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal S, Agarwal A, Joon P, et al. Fetal adrenal gland biometry and cervical elastography as predictors of preterm birth: a comparative study. Ultrasound. 2018;26(1):54–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schisterman EF, Perkins NJ, Liu A, et al. Optimal cut-point and its corresponding youden index to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples. Epidemiology. 2005;16(1):73–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar