Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?

References

• MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ, Martin JA, Malloy MH. Trends and characteristics of induced labour in the United States, 1989–98. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002; 16: 263–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gjessing LK. Results from Department of Obstetrics, Stavanger University Hospital, 1997–2007. Available online at: http://www.kvinneklinikken-sus.com/01_results/obstetr/publ_B1_STANDARD.htm (accessed October 30, 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 287–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Salazar F, Perez-Medina T, Engels V, Archilla B, et al. Variables that predict the success of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 1093–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM. Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 409–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 227–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 538–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 17: 315–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrix NW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Martin JN, Jr, Devoe LD. Bishop score: a poor diagnostic test to predict failed induction versus vaginal delivery. South Med J 1998; 91: 248–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 623–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faltin-Traub EF, Boulvain M, Faltin DL, Extermann P, Irion O. Reliability of the Bishop score before labour induction at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 112: 178–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laencina AM, Sanchez FG, Gimenez JH, Martinez MS, Martinez JA, Vizcaino VM. Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the Bishop score in predicting successful labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 799–804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange AP, Secher NJ, Westergaard JG, Skovgard I. Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 137–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin D, Sadoul G, Beuret T. Measuring the height of a cephalic presentation: an objective assessment of station. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1977; 7: 369–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elghorori MR, Hassan I, Dartey W, Abdel-Aziz E. A way to lend objectivity to Bishop score. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26: 311–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• House M, Socrate S. The cervix as a biomechanical structure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 745–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 1998; 7: 183–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C, Ville Y. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. BJOG 2005; 112: 192–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, et al. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 387–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 573–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentin L, Bergelin I. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of cervical length and width in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 256–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Department of Reproductive Health and Research . Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors. 2003. WHO/RHR/007. Available online at: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/impac/mcpc.pdf (accessed October 30, 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Økland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 199–204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elghorori MR, Hassan I, Dartey W, Abdel-Aziz E, Bradley M. Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26: 521–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith GC, Celik E, To M, Khouri O, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at mid-pregnancy and the risk of primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1346–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonek JD, Iams JD, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 172–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugwumandu A. The role of ultrasound scanning on the labor ward. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 222–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM. Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 123–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar