Clinical and ultrasonographic parameters in assessment of labor induction success in nulliparous women

References

• Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:486.e1–486.e9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie IZ. Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium. Reproduction. 2006;131:989–998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baños N, Migliorelli F, Posadas E, et al. Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38:161–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park KH, Hong JS, Shin DM, et al. Prediction of failed labor induction in parous women at term: role of previous obstetric history, digital examination and sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35:301–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, et al. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:261–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerli S, Favilli A, Giordano C, et al. Single indications of induction of labor with prostaglandins and risk of cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39:926–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenthal DB, Jiang X, Strobino DM. Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:35–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, et al. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:805–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, et al. Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:357–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassiter JR, Holliday N, Lewis DF, et al. Induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix: how does BMI affect success? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:3000–3002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:690–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SN, Park KH, Jung HJ, et al. Clinical and sonographic parameters at 37 weeks’ gestation for predicting the risk of primary cesarean delivery in nulliparous women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:486–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound estimation of birth weight prior to induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:304–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorsell M, Lyrenäs S, Andolf E, et al. Induction of labor and the risk for emergency cesarean section in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1094–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennen CS, Bofill JA, Magann EF, et al. Risk factors for cesarean delivery in preterm, term and post-term patients undergoing induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;67:113–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, et al. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:568–573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, et al. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:198–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C, et al. 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;112:192–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivars J, Garabedian C, Devos P, et al. Simplified Bishop score including parity predicts successful induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:309–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, et al. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:538–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Økland I, Heien C, et al. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:325–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Roos C, Arabin B, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in the supine and upright positions versus Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:213–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indraccolo U, Scutiero G, Greco P. Sonographic cervical shortening after labor induction is a predictor of vaginal delivery. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38:585–588.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kehila M, Abouda HS, Sahbi K, et al. Ultrasound cervical length measurement in prediction of labor induction outcome. NPM. 2016;9:127–131.
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:186–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang WS, Park KH, Kim SN, et al. Degree of cervical shortening after initial induction of labor as a predictor of subsequent successful induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:749–754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aracic N, Stipic I, Jakus Alujevic I, et al. The value of ultrasound measurement of cervical length and parity in prediction of cesarean section risk in term premature rupture of membranes and unfavorable cervix. J Perinat Med. 2017;45:99–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar