| Literature DB >> 25013711 |
Y J B Groeneveld1, A M Bohnen2, A M Van Heusden3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the value of transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of the cervical length versus the Bishop score, prior to induction of labour, in predicting the mode of delivery within four days.Entities:
Keywords: Bishop score; cervical length; induction of labour; term pregnancy; transvaginal ultrasonography; vaginal delivery
Year: 2010 PMID: 25013711 PMCID: PMC4090590
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn ISSN: 2032-0418
Bishop scores for nulliparous women (N-score) versus multiparous women (M-score).
| N- score | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Components | Score | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Consistency | firm | medium | soft |
| Cervical position | posterior | mid | anterior |
| Effacement of cervix | 0% | 0%-100% | 100% |
| Degree of dilatation | < 1 cm | 1-2 cm | > 2 cm |
| Station of presenting part | < Hodge 2 | Hodge 2-3 | > Hodge 3 |
| M-score | |||
| Components | Score | ||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Degree of dilatation | < 1 cm | 1-2 cm | > 2 cm |
| Station of presenting part | < Hodge 1 | Hodge 1-2 | > Hodge 2 |
1Flowchart of the success rate in the present study
Characteristics and indications of the study population (n = 110) at start of induction of labour.
| Nulliparous women n = 66 (60%) | Multiparous women n = 44 (40%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years: mean (range)* | 28.61 (18-43) | 32.93 (26-41) | ||
| Ethnicity n (%) | ||||
| Dutch | 28 (42.42) | 21 (47.73) | ||
| Non-Dutch | 38 (57.58) | 23 (52.27) | ||
| Mediterranean | 23 (34.85) | 16 (36.36) | ||
| Negroid | 11 (16.67 | 4 (9.09) | ||
| Asiatic | 1 (1.52) | 0 (0.00) | ||
| Hindustani | 1 (1.52) | 3 (6.82) | ||
| East-European | 2 (3.03) | 0 | ||
| Indication for induction n (%) | ||||
| PROM > 48 hours | 14 (21.21) | 7 (15.91) | ||
| HELLP syndrome or pre-eclampsia | 9 (13.64) | 6 (13.64) | ||
| Diabetes maternal or gravity related | 4 (6.06) | 17 (38.64) | ||
| Prolonged pregnancy | 28 (42.42) | 7 (15.91) | ||
| Restricted intrauterine growth Amniotic fluid problems** | 5 (7.58) | 0 | ||
| Elective induction | 4 (6.06) | 3 (6.82) | ||
| Gestational cholestasis | 1 (1.52) | 3 (6.82) | ||
| 1 (1.52) | 1 (2.27) | |||
| Gestational age at induction in days: mean (range) * | 282.92 (259-294) | 274.61 (259- 294) | ||
| Length of the cervix at induction in mm: mean (range) * | 29.31 (5.0-56.0) | 37.04 (12.0-56.0) | ||
| Bishop score at induction: mean (range) * | 2.38 (0-6) | 0.70 (0-2) | ||
* p-value < 0.05 one-way ANOVA
** oligohydramnion, polyhydramnion, stained amniotic fluid
PROM (Prelabour rupture of membranes)
HELLP (Haemolysis elevated liver enzymes and low platelets)
Characteristics and outcome after induction of labour (n = 110).
| Nulliparous women n = 66 (60%) | Multiparous women n = 44 (40%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Dinoprostone gel mg (range) | 2.94 (1-7) | 3.22 (2-6) |
| Misoprostol tablets of 25 µg (range) | 0.17 (0-4) | 0.24 (0-6) |
| Oxytocin augmentation n (%)* | 37 (56.06) | 14 (31.8) |
| Analgesic n (%)* | 51 (77.27) | 20 (45.45) |
| None | 15 (22.73) | 24 (54.55) |
| Pethidine | 28 (42.42) | 17 (38.64) |
| Epidural anaesthesia | 10 (15.15) | 1 ( 2.27) |
| Combination | 13 (19.70) | 2 ( 4.55) |
| Interval between induction and delivery in hours: mean (range) | 28.95 (7.0-92.0) | 23.66 (4.5- 95.5) |
| Apgar score at 1 min: mean (range) | 8.21 (1-9) | 8.55 (1-10) |
| Apgar score at 5 min: mean (range) | 9.42 (5-10) | 9.73 (7-10) |
| Umbilical artery pH: mean (range) | 7.203 (7.01-7.34) | 7.204 (7.01-7.37) |
| Fetal weight in g: mean (range) | 3389 (1830-4585) | 3415 (2310-4440) |
| Vaginal delivery n (%)* | 50 (75.76) | 41 (93.18) |
| < 96 h (success) * | 48 (72.73) | 40 (90.91) |
| Spontaneous | 34 (51.52) | 39 (88.64) |
| Vacuum | 14 (21.21) | 1 (2.27) |
| Fetal distress | 8 (12.12) | 1 (2.27) |
| Arrest of fetal descent | 6 (9.09) | 0 |
| > 96 h | 2 (3.03) | 1 (2.27) |
| Spontaneous | 1 (1.52) | 1 (2.27) |
| Vacuum | 1 (1.52) | 0 |
| Fetal distress | 1 (1.52) | 0 |
| Arrest of fetal descent | 0 | 0 |
| Caesarean section n (%) | 16 (24.24) | 3 (6.82) |
| Fetal distress | 10 (15.15) | 2 (4.55) |
| Arrest of dilatation | 4 (6.06) | 1 (2.27) |
| Arrest of fetal descent | 2 (3.03) | 0 |
* p-value < 0.05 one-way ANOVA
Areas under the ROC curve and 95% CI for the Bishop score and cervical length in nulliparous and multiparous women.
| Area | SE | Significance | 95% confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Boundary | Upper Boundary | ||||
| Bishop score nulliparae | 0.679 | 0.730 | 0.026* | 0.536 | 0.823 |
| Bishop score multiparae | 0.712 | 0.100 | 0.165 | 0.516 | 0.909 |
| Cervical length nulliparae | 0.430 | 0.081 | 0.384 | 0.272 | 0.588 |
| Cervical length multiparae | 0.719 | 0.080 | 0.153 | 0.562 | 0.876 |
* p-value > 0.05, SE = standard error
Data on diagnostic value of varying the cut-off point of the Bishop score in nulliparous women to predict the success of induction of labour.
| Parameter | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | LR+ | LR- | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bishop score | ||||||
| 6 | 2.1 | 100 | ∞ | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.28 |
| 5 | 16.7 | 44.0 | 2.98 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 37.5 | 83.3 | 2.25 | 0.75 | 0.86 | 0.33 |
| 3 | 56.3 | 72.2 | 2.03 | 0.61 | 0.84 | 0.38 |
| 2 | 75.0 | 55.6 | 1.69 | 0.45 | 0.82 | 0.46 |
| 1 | 81.3 | 38.9 | 1.33 | 0.48 | 0.78 | 0.44 |
LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; L- = negative likelihood ratio; PPV = positive predictive value; NPP = negative predictive value