1. The Bishop score should not be replaced with sonographic cervical length measurement in women undergoing induction of labour with misoprostol as it has better superiority in predicting induction outcomes.
2. Women undergoing induction of labour with misoprostol at term and beyond can be counseled that they have a 90% chance of successful induction when they have a Bishop score of greater than 4 or a sonographic cervical length ≤ 24mm.
3. Induction of labour can be delayed till the optimum cervical parameters are attained in selected patients as long as there is no identifiable risk to the mother and fetus. This will ensure that induction is done at such a time that it is likely to succeed.
4. Obstetric patients undergoing transvaginal ultrasonography can be reassured that it is a tolerable procedure.
5. More randomised controlled trials need to be done to compare the predictive value of bishop score with those of other methods.
53 REFERENCES
1. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
2015, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD010762. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2.
Accessed 6th May, 2017.
2. Bahadori F, Ayatollahi H, Naghavi-Behzad M, Khalkhali H, Naseri Z. Predicting factors on cervical ripening and response to induction in women pregnant over 37 weeks. Med Ultrason. 2013; 15: 191-198. DOI:10.11152/mu.2013.2066.153.fb1ha2.
3. Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Pe´rez-Medina T, Barbancho C, Troyanon J, Bajo J. The labour induction: integrated clinical and sonographic variables that predict the outcome. Journal of Perinatology. 2007; 27: 4–8
4. McEwan A. Labour. In: Baker PN, Kenny LC (eds). Obstetrics by Ten Teachers. 19th ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2011. P185 – 223.
5. Park KH. Transvaginal Ultrasonographic Cervical Measurement in Predicting Failed Labour Induction and Cesarean Delivery for Failure to Progress in Nulliparous Women. J Korean Med Sci. 2007; 22: 722 - 727
6. 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. Accessed 4th May, 2016.
7. Bastani P, Hamdi K, Abasalizadeh F, Pourmousa P, Ghatrehsamani F. Transvaginal ultrasonography compared with Bishop score for predicting cesarean section after induction of labour. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2011; 3: 277–280 8. Park KH, Hong JS, Kang WS, Shin DM, Kim SN. Body mass index, Bishop score,
and sonographic measurement of the cervical length as predictors of successful labour induction in twin gestations. J. Perinat. Med. 2009; 37: 519–523
54 9. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment
before induction of labour. J Ultrasound Med. 2004; 23: 375–382.
10. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 24:
538–549.
11. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ.
Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labour in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 690-697.
12. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labour and the relationship to caesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180:
628 – 633.
13. Jamal A, Rezasoltani R, Marsoosi V. Comparison of Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound assessment of the cervix in prediction of labour induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 30: 532 - 532.
14. Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 858-863.
15. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou TA, RamanathanVG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH.
Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 18: 623–628.
16. Baacke KA, Edwards RK. Preinduction cervical assessment. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006; 49: 563–572.
17. Bansiwal R, Rao R, Misra N, Kapur V. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 2: 611-615.
55 18. Crane JMG. Factors predicting labour induction success: a critical analysis. Clinical
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006; 49: 573–584.
19. Hamdallah SM, Hassim RA. Transvaginal Ultrasound Measurement as a predictor of successful labour induction. J Fac Med Baghdad. 2006; 48: 162 – 167
20. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labour induction at term:
tolerability and prediction of Caesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;
29: 568 – 573.
21. Sonek JD, Iams JD, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 76: 172–175.
22. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 2–6.
23. Cengiz H, Yalvac S, Yavuzcan A, Kandemir O. Prediction of successful induction of labour with dinoprostone in a homogenous group of patients. SAJOG. 2012; 18: 19 - 22
24. Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadati M, Severi FM, Petraglia F.
Prediction of successful induction of labour 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
25. Lawani LO, Onyebuchi AK, Iyoke CA, Okafo CN, Ajah LO. Obstetric Outcome and Significance of Labour Induction in a Health Resource Poor Setting. Obstetrics and Gynaecology International. 2014; Article ID 419621, 5 pages.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/419621. Accessed 4th May, 2016.
56 26. Ijaiya MA, Aboyeji PA. Caesarean delivery: the trend over a ten-year period at Ilorin,
Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research. 2001; 3: 11 – 18.
27. MacKenzie IZ. Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium. Reproduction.
2006; 131: 989 -998
28. Calder A. Review of Prostaglandin use in labour induction. BMJ. 1997; 104: 2-7.
29. Dale HH. On some physiological actions of ergot. Journal of Physiology. 1906; 34:
163-206
30. Bell WB. The pituitary body and therapeutic value of the infundibular extract in shock, atony, and intestinal paresis. BMJ. 1909; 1069-613
31. Theobald GW, Graham A, Campbell J, Gange PD, Driscoll WJ. Use of post-pituitary exract in obstetrics. BMJ. 1948; 2: 123-7
32. American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Induction of Labour. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 386 -397.
33. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Induction of Labour. NICE Clinical Guideline 70. London: RCOG Press; 2008 Jul.
34. Bako BG, Obed JY, Sanusi IM. Methods of Induction of Labour at the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, Maiduguri: A 4-Year Review. Nigerian Journal of Medicine.2008; 17: 139 - 142.
35. Tandu-Umba B, Tshibangu RL, Muela AM. Maternal and perinatal outcomes of induction of labour at term in the university clinics of Kinshasa, DR Congo. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 3: 154 – 157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2013.31A029. Accessed 4th May, 2016.
36. Fawole B, Idi N, M’mimunya M, Jean-Jose WM, Kidza M, Isilda N et al. Unmet need for induction of labour in Africa: secondary analysis from the 2004 – 2005 WHO Global Maternal and Perinatal Health Survey (A cross-sectional survey). BMC Public
57 Health. 2012; 12:722. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/722.
Accessed on 6th April, 2016.
37. Aziken M, Omo-Aghoja L, Okonofua F. Perceptions and attitudes of pregnant women towards caesarean section in urban Nigeria. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2007; 86: 42-47.
38. Sunday-Adeoye I, Kalu C A. Pregnant Nigerian women's view of cesarean section.
Niger J Clin Pract 2011; 14: 276-279.
39. Nicholson JM, Cronholm P, Kellar LC, Stenson MH, Maccones GA. The association between increased use of labour induction and reduced rate of caesarean delivery. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009; 18: 1747 – 1758
40. Sanchez-Ramos L, Olivier F, Delke I, Kaunitz AM. Labour induction versus expectant management for postterm pregnancies: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101: 1312 – 1318
41. Sue-A-Quan AK, Hannah ME, Cohen MM, Foster GA, Liston RM. Effect of labour induction on rates of stillbirth and caesarean section in post-term pregnancies. CMAJ 1999; 160: 1145 – 1149
42. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, Vijgen SM, Aarnoudse JG, Bekedam DJ et al:
HYPITAT study group. Induction of labor versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 979-988.
43. Alchalabi HA, Obeidat BR, Jallad MF, Khader YS. Induction of labour and perinatal outcome: the impact of the amniotic fluid index. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
2006; 129: 124-127.
58 44. Tan P C, Suguna S, Vallikkannu N, Hassan J. Predictors of newborn admission after labour induction at term: Bishop score,pre-induction ultrasonography and clinical risk factors. Singapore Med J. 2008; 49: 193-198.
45. Calder AA. In: Normal Labour. Edmonds DK. (ed). Dewhurst’s textbook of obstetrics
&gynaecology. 7th ed. Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. P46 -55
46. Emuveyan EE. In: Physiology and management of labour. Kwawukume EY, Emuveyan EE (eds). Comprehensive Obsterics in the tropics. 1st ed. Dansoman:
Asante &Hittscher Printing Press Limited; 2002. P59 – 67.
47. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010, Issue 10.
Art. No.: CD000941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2. Accessed4th May, 2016.
48. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 20 14, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD001338. DOI:
10.1002/14651858. CD001338.pub3. Accessed 5th May, 2016
49. Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2α) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD003101; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003101.pub2.
Accessed 5th May, 2016
50. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz A. Induction of Labour. Glob. libr. women’s med. April 2009; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10130. Accesed 4th May, 2016.
51. Calkins LA, Irvine JH, Horsley GW. Variation in the length of labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1930; 19: 294–297.
52. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynaecol. 1964; 24: 266-8
59 53. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. Induction of labour. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9.
London: RCOG Press; 2001.
54. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labour: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. European Journal of Ultrasound. 1998; 7: 183–187
55. Burnett JE. Preinduction scoring: an objective approach to induction of labour.
Obstetrics and Gynecology 1966; 28: 479–83.
56. Society of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 296. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35: 1-18.
57. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Apr 2011; 117: 805-811.
58. Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88: 990-992.
59. Faltin-Traub EF, Boulvain M, Faltin DL, Extermann P, Irion O. Reliability of the Bishop score before labour induction at term. European Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2004; 112:178–181
60. Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, van der Post JA, Pajkrt E, Opmeer BC, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labour induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013; 30: 625 -630.
61. Campbell S. A short history of sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2013; 5: 213 – 229.
60 62. Verhoeven CJM, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, Van der Post JAM, Mol BWJ.
Prediction of the outcome of labour induction at term by transvaginal sonography.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 500 – 508.
63. Clement S, Candy B, Heath V, To M, Nicolaides KH. Transvaginal ultrasound in pregnancy: its acceptability to women and maternal psychological morbidity.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22: 508-514.
64. Beam CA. Strategies for improving power in diagnostic radiology research. Am J Roentgenol. 1992; 159: 631–637.
65. Connor R. J. Sample size for testing differences in proportions for the paired-sample design. Biometrics. 1987; 43: 207-211.
66. Sanders RC. In: Sanders RC, Winter TC. Clinical Sonography. A Practical Guide. 4th ed. Lipincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. P 286 -7
67. Kagan KO, Sonek J. How to measure cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2015; 45: 358 – 362.
68. The fetal medicine foundation. Cervical assessment. Available at https://fetalmedicine.org/training-n-certification/certificates-of-competence/cervical-assessment-1. Accessed 14th May, 2016.
69. Cervix Transvaginal Ultrasound (TVUS). Available at obimages.net/cervix. Accessed 25th July, 2017.
70. Numeric pain rating scale [internet]. 2010 February 09 [cited 2014 July 7]. Available from: http://www.va.gov/painmanagement/docs/painNRS.pdf. Accessed 5th May, 2016.
71. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaklis A. Sonographic Cervical Length Measurement before Labor Induction in Term Nulliparous Women. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006;21:34–38
61 72. Jackson GM, Ludimir J, Bader TJ. The accuracy of digital examination and
ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79:214-8.
73. Rane SM, Pandis GK, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nikolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2003; 22:40-44.
62