A way to lend objectivity to Bishop score

References

• Alderman B. Factors influencing planned delivery. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1975; 2: 19–47
   Google Scholar
• Andersen H F, Nugent C E, Wanty S D, Hayashi R H. Prediction of risk of preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990; 163: 859–867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen H F. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 1991; 19: 77–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arulkumaran S, Gibb D M, Tambyraja R L, Heng S H, Ratnam S S. Failed induction of labour. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985; 25: 190–193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop E M. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1964; 24: 266–268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger M, Weber-Rössler T, Willmann M. Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: an interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997; 9: 188–193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cocks D P. Significance of initial condition of cervix uteri to course of labour. British Medical Journal 1955; 1: 327–328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole R A, Howie P W, Macnaughton M C. Elective induction of labour. A randomised prospective trial. Lancet 1975; 1: 767–770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library. Update Software, Oxford 2001, Issue 3
   Google Scholar
• Crump W J. Bishop score and labor duration: A new look. South Medical Journal 1987; 80: 1294–1295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhall K, Mittal S C, Kumar A. Evaluation of pre-induction scoring system. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1987; 27: 309–311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman E A, Niswander K R, Bayonet-Rivera N P, Sachtleben M R. Relationship of prelabor evaluation to inducibility and the course of labor. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1966; 28: 459–501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman E A, Niswander K R, Bayonet-Rivera N P, Sachtleben M R. Prelabor status evaluation II. Weighted score. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1967; 29: 539–544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman E A, Sachtleben M R. Determinant role of initial cervical dilatation on the course of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1962; 84: 930–935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuentes A, Williams M. Cervical assessment. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995; 38: 224–231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg J, Newman R B, Rust P F. Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurements. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997; 177: 853–858
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison R F, Flynn M, Craft I. Assessment of factors constituting an ‘inducibility profile’. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1977; 49: 270–274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holcomb W L, Smeltzer J S. Cervical effacement: variation in belief among clinicians. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991; 78: 43–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughey M J, McElin T W, Bird C C. An evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1976; 48: 635–641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krammer J, Williams M C, Sawai S K, O'Brien W F. Pre-induction cervical ripening: A randomised comparison of two methods. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995; 85: 614–618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange A P, Secher N J, Westergaard J G, Skovgard I. Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1982; 60: 137–147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Inherited Clinical Guidelines D. Induction of Labour. NICE, London 2001
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien J M, Allen A A, Barton J R. Intravaginal saline as a contrast agent for cervical sonography in the obstetric patient. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999; 13: 137–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandis G K, Papageorghiou A T, Ramanathan V G, Thompson M O, Nicolaides K H. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001; 18: 623–628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson-Brown S, Fisk N M, Edmonds D K, Rodeck C H. Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop's score and transvaginal ultrasound. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 1991; 40: 17–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps J Y, Higby K, Smyth M H, Ward J A, Arredondo F, Mayer A R. Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1995; 173: 942–945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane S M, Pandis G K, Guirgis R R, Higgins B, Nicolaides K H. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003; 22: 40–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist (RCOG). Clinical Support Unit. Induction of labour. RCOG. RCOG, London 2001, Evidence-based Clinical Guideline. No. 9
   Google Scholar
• Sande H A, Tuveng J, Fonstelien T. A prospective randomised study of induction of labor. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1983; 21: 333–336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoonjans F. MedCalc Software for windows. Statistics for biomedical research. Version 7.3, Belgium 2004
   Google Scholar
• Sonek J D, Iams J D, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990; 76: 172–175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sue-A-Quan A K, Hannah M E, Cohen M M, Foster G A, Liston R M. Effect of labour induction on rates of stillbirth and caesarean section in post-term pregnancies. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1999; 160: 1145–1149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam W H, Tai S M, Rogers M S. Prediction of cervical response to prostaglandin E2 using fetal fibronectin. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1999; 78: 861–865
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson W J, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 88: 990–992
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams M C, Krammer J, O'Brien W F. The value of the cervical score in predicting successful outcome of labor induction. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997; 90: 784–789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar