A new objective scoring system for the prediction of successful induction of labour
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Dhanvantari Nagar, Pondicherry 605006, India. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
(Impact Factor: 0.55).
02/2012; 32(2):145-7. DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2011.637142
A prospective study was done in 311 women undergoing induction of labour for the formulation of a new score, which will be more objective than the conventional Bishop's score. Pre-induction cervical assessment was done by the transvaginal sonographic parameters followed by the digital examination. Labour induction was successful in 79.09%. A new score was formulated using the parameters having independent association and weighting of individual components was given according to its regression coefficients. A new score with a maximum value of 13 was proposed. The best cut-off point for the new score in receiver operating characteristics curve was six with a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 84.6%. The new score was found to have a better area under the curve than the conventional score.
Available from: George Eleje
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Induction of labour is the artificial initiation of labour in a pregnant woman after the age of fetal viability but without any objective evidence of active phase labour and with intact fetal membranes. The need for induction of labour may arise due to a problem in the mother, her fetus or both, and the procedure may be carried out at or before term. Obstetricians have long known that for this to be successful, it is important that the uterine cervix (the neck of the womb) has favourable characteristics in terms of readiness to go into the labour state.
To compare Bishop score with any other method for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening in women admitted for induction of labour.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
All RCTs comparing Bishop score with any other methods of pre-induction cervical assessment in women admitted for induction of labour. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion if they provided sufficient information.Comparisons could include the following.1. Bishop score versus transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS).2. Bishop score versus Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1).3. Bishop score versus vaginal fetal fibronectin (fFN).However, we only identified data for a comparison of Bishop score versus TVUS.
Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy.
We included two trials that recruited a total of 234 women. The overall risk of bias was low for the two studies. Both studies compared Bishop score withTVUS.The two included studies did not show any clear difference between the Bishop score and TVUS groups for the following main outcomes: vaginal birth (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25, moderate quality evidence), caesarean delivery (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34, moderate quality evidence), neonatal admission into neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.71, moderate quality evidence). Both studies only provided median data in relation to induction-delivery interval and reported no clear difference between the Bishop and TVUS groups. Perinatal mortality was not reported in the included studies.For the review's secondary outcomes, the need for misoprostol for cervical ripening was more frequent in the TVUS group compared to the Bishop score group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.66, two studies, 234 women, moderate quality evidence). In contrast, there were no clear differences between the Bishop scope and TVUS groups in terms of meconium staining of the amniotic fluid, fetal heart rate abnormality in labour, and Apgar score less than seven. Only one trial reported median data on the induction-delivery interval and induction to active phase interval, the trialist reported no difference between the Bishop group and the TVUS group for this outcome. Neither of the included studies reported on uterine rupture.
Moderate quality evidence from two small RCTs involving 234 women that compared two different methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening (Bishop score and TVUS) did not demonstrate superiority of one method over the other in terms of the main outcomes assessed in this review. We did not identify any data relating to perinatal mortality. Whilst use of TVUS was associated with an increased need for misoprostol for cervical ripening, both methods could be complementary.The choice of a particular method of assessing pre-induction cervical ripening may differ depending on the environment and need where one is practicing since some methods (i.e. TVUS) may not be readily available and affordable in resource-poor settings where the sequelae of labour and its management is prevalent.The evidence in this review is based on two studies that enrolled a small number of women and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of TVUS over the standard digital vaginal assessment in pre-induction cervical ripening. Further adequately powered RCTs involving TVUS and the Bishop score and including other methods of pre-induction cervical ripening assessment are warranted. Such studies need to address uterine rupture, perinatal mortality, optimal cut-off value of the cervical length and Bishop score to classify women as having favourable or unfavourable cervices and cost should be included as an outcome.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD010762. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010762.(10). DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010762. · 6.03 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Induction of labor is one of the most common obstetric interventions in contemporary obstetrics.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and sonographic parameters in prediction of success of labor induction.
The prospective study included 422 women in whom induction of labor was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Clinical Centre of Vojvodina. The role of body mass index and age of women, parity Bishop score, cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasound was evaluated in regard of the success of induction, which was considered successful if a vaginal delivery occurred within 24 hours after the onset of induction. Data were statistically analyzed by univariate statistical analysis and Pearson's chi2 test.
Out of 422 women, induction of labor was successful in 356 (84.4%), and it failed in 66 (15.6%) cases. The values of Bishop score and cervical length had positive correlation with the success of induction.
Bishop score and transvaginal cervical length were both reliable predictors in determining the success of labor induction, as well as parity and BMI. These parameters are mostly complementary, not competitive in prediction of labor induction success.
Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo 11/2013; 141(11-12):770-4. DOI:10.2298/SARH1312770T · 0.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to review the literature examining the role of ultrasound in the induction of labor. Databases including Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and UpToDate were searched and current guidelines from the SOGC, the ACOG, the RCOG, and the RANZCOG were reviewed. Although studies have not demonstrated the superiority of cervical sonography to the Bishop score, the evidence indicates that sonography could be useful in planning induction of labor, significantly reducing the need for cervical ripening agents. A more comprehensive method integrating both sonography and digital exam may be more appropriate. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound, 2014
Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 09/2014; 43(1). DOI:10.1002/jcu.22229 · 0.69 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.