Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Cervical Assessment before Induction of Labor

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 375-384

  Yang, Soon Ha ^a   Roh, Cheong Rae ^a   Kim, Jong Hwa ^a  

^a Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Bishop score; Cervical length; Labor induction; Transvaginal ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ULTRASONICS;

CERVICAL ASSESSMENT; LABOR INDUCTION; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

MEDICINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BISHOP SCORE; CHI SQUARE TEST; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABOR INDUCTION; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PARITY; PERFORMANCE; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PREDICTION; RANK SUM TEST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SOUTH KOREA; SURVIVAL; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX;

EID: 1542347904     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2004.23.3.375     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Lim BH, Mahmood TA, Smith NC, Beat I. A prospective comparative study of transvaginal ultrasonography and digital examination for cervical assessment in the third trimester of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1992; 20:599-603.
2. Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79:214-218.
3. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:567-572.
4. Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Sonographic measurement of uterine cervix at 18-22 weeks' gestation and the risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:902-907.
5. Timor-Tritsch IE, Boozarjomehri F, Masakowski Y, Monteagudo A, Chao CR. Can a "snapshot" sagittal view of the cervix by transvaginal ultrasonography predict active preterm labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174:990-995.
6. Leitich H, Brunbauer M, Kaider A, Egarter C, Husslein P. Cervical length and dilatation of the internal cervical os detected by vaginal ultrasonography as markers for preterm delivery: a systemic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:1465-1472.
7. Boozarjomehri F, Timor-Tritsch I, Chao CR, Fox HE. Transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix before labor: presence of cervical wedging is associated with shorter duration of induced labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171:1081-1087.
8. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 1030-1032.
9. 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; 18:623-628.
10. Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19:254-257.
11. Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM, Edmonds DK, Rodeck CH. Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop's score and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 40:17-23.
12. Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88:990-992.
13. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 1998; 7:183-187.
14. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:2-6.
15. Induction and augmentation of labor. In: Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD (eds). Williams' Obstetrics. 21st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2001: 469-481.
16. Andersen HF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1991; 19:77-83.
17. Edwards RK, Richard DS. Preinduction cervical assessment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43:440-446.
18. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24:266-268.
19. Williams MC, Krammer J, O'Brien WF. The value of the cervical score in predicting successful outcome of labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90:784-789.
20. 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; 91:248-252.
21. Golub MS, Donald JM, Anderson JH, Ford EW. A labor readiness index (Bishop score) for rhesus monkeys. Lab Anim Sci 1988; 38:435-438.
22. Zilianti M, Azuaga A, Calderon F, Pages G, Mendoza G. Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by transperineal sonography: a new perspective. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14:719-724.
23. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, et al. Ultrasonographic examination of the cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171:956-964.
24. Goldberg J, Newman RB, Rust PF. Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:853-858.
25. Sonek J, Shellhaas C. Cervical sonography: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11:71-78.