A way to lend objectivity to Bishop score

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 311-316

  Elghorori, M R M ^a   Hassan, I ^a   Dartey, W ^a   Abdel Aziz, E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BISHOP SCORE; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABOR STAGE, FIRST; LABOR, INDUCED; PALPATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; ROC CURVE;

EID: 33745027700     PISSN: 01443615     EISSN: 13646893     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443610600594922     Document Type: Article

References (35)

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