Validation of models that predict Cesarean section after induction of labor

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 316-321

  Verhoeven, C J M ^a   Oudenaarden, A ^a   Hermus, M A A ^b   Porath, M M ^a   Oei, S G ^a   Mol, B W J ^a,c  

^a MÁXIMA MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Midwifery Practice Trivia   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cervical length; Cesarean section; Induction of labor; Prediction; Ultrasonography; Validation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL LENGTH MEASUREMENT; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; BODY MASS INDEX; CERVICAL LENGTH MEASUREMENT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 69949103717     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.7315     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003; 52: 1-114.
2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Induction of labour - full guidance. RCOG Press: London, 2001.
3. Elferink-Stinkens P. Quality management in obstetrics: reporting population adjusted intervention and mortality rates. Academisch Proefschrift: Nijmegen, 2000.
4. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 628-633. (Pubitemid 29149138)
5. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 917-922.
6. Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 986-994. (Pubitemid 30796315)
7. Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001; 15: 131-139. (Pubitemid 32488052)
8. rd edn). Baillière Tindall Publishers: London, 1993.
9. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 600-607. (Pubitemid 29460948)
10. LVR-2, 2000; The Netherlands Perinatal Registry.
11. Werkgroep bekkenbodem. Zwangerschap, Bevalling en Bekkenbodem. Uitgave ter gelegenheid van het 2e lustrum van de werkgroep bekkenbodem van de NVOG onder redactie van Vierhout ME. 2001; Organon, ISBN 90-6878-0255.
12. Richtlijn NVOG nr. 68: Vaginale kunstverlossing. May 2005. http://www.nvog-documenten.nl/richtlijn [Accessed 14 April 2008].
13. Govaert P. Onderzoek van de pasgeborene na instrumentele kunstverlossing. In Perinatale asfyxie en hersenbeschadiging, Vandenbussche FPHA, Kanhai HHH, Berger HM (eds). Boerhaave-cursus Post-academisch onderwijs in de Geneeskunde: Leiden, 1999.
14. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW. Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 132: 171-176. (Pubitemid 46830726)
15. Richtlijn NVOG nr. 05: Inductie van de baring. September 2006. http://www.nvog-documenten.nl/richtlijn [Accessed 14 April 2008].
16. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268.
17. Faltrin-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: 178-181. (Pubitemid 38117335)
18. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou V, Ramanathan M, Thompson O, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of the cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 623-628.
19. 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. (Pubitemid 24341502)
20. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 1030-1032. (Pubitemid 30353271)
21. Watson WS, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 990-992. (Pubitemid 26391501)
22. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Tranvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 2-6. (Pubitemid 32622755)
23. Vrouenraets FPJM, Roumen FJME, Dehing CJG, van den Akker ESA, Aarts MJB, Scheve EJT. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 690-697. (Pubitemid 40432183)
24. 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: 227-233. (Pubitemid 43755647)
25. 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 Maternal Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 17: 315-322. (Pubitemid 40992316)
26. Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 793-799. (Pubitemid 15232315)
27. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, Donders AR, Derksen-Lubsen G, Grobbee DE, Moons KG. External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 826-832. (Pubitemid 37162656)
28. Stolwijk AM, Straatman H, Zielhuis GA, Jansen CA, Braat DD, van Dop PA, Veerbeek AL. External validation of prognostic models for ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 3542-3549. (Pubitemid 29002655)
29. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristics: a non-parametric approach. Biometrics 1988; 44: 837-845.
30. Miller ME, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Validation techniques for logistic regression models. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1213-1226.
31. 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. (Pubitemid 28419445)
32. Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Severi FM, Petraglia F. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 1361-1367. (Pubitemid 37542173)
33. Roman H, Verspyck E, Vercoustre L, Degre S, Col JY, Firmin JM, Caron P, Marpeau L. The role of ultrasound and fetal fibronectin in predicting the length of induced labor when the cervix is unfavorable. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 567-573. (Pubitemid 38829865)
34. 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: 192-196. (Pubitemid 40188247)