A small number of research groups in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s were also attempting to derive predictive algorithms for successful labour induction using various ultrasound(Rane et al., 2004) and combined ultrasound and clinical parameters(Peregrine et al., 2006). We made a similar attempt at that time to establish independent ultrasound and clinical predictors of labour induction failure. This report was abstracted by Obstetrical and Gyneological Survey with an editorial commentary shortly after publication (Obstet Gynecol Surv: Volume 62(3), March 2007, pp 170-171). However, secondary analysis of our data showed that an unfavourable Bishop Score but not a long cervix on transvaginal
ultrasound is an independent predictor of neonatal admission after delivery following labour induction after adjustment.(Tan, Suguna, Vallikkannu, &
Hassan, 2008)
Cervical length by transvaginal ultrasound as a predictor of successful labour induction compared to the Bishop Score was extensively researched in the early 2000’s with conflicting findings.(Boozarjomehri et al., 1994; Chandra et al., 2001;
Gabriel et al., 2002; Gabriel et al., 2001; Gonen et al., 1998; Pandis et al., 2001;
Paterson-Brown et al., 1991; Rane et al., 2003, 2004; Reis et al., 2003; Rozenberg et al., 2005; Ware & Raynor, 2000; Yang et al., 2004) In addition to contributing
a significant volume of data to the ongoing debate about the relative roles of transvaginal ultrasound for cervical length versus Bishop Score for predicting successful labour induction, we also undertook the opportunity to confirm whether transvaginal ultrasound is better tolerated than per-vaginal digital
assessment to obtain the Bishop Score.(Tan, Vallikkannu, et al., 2007) Secondary analysis of our data indicated that a long cervix on transvaginal ultrasound just prior to labour induction is a far better predictor of Caesarean delivery in nulliparous women than in parous women.(Tan, Vallikkannu, Suguna, Quek, &
Hassan, 2009)
5.1.3.1.Tan PC, Suguna S, Vallikkannu N, Hassan J. Ultrasound and clinical predictors for Caesarean delivery after labour induction at term. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Dec;46(6):505-9.
Cited by as listed below
5.1.3.1.1. Gestational age-specific severe maternal morbidity associated with labor induction. Liu S, Joseph KS, Hutcheon JA, Bartholomew S, León JA, Walker M, Kramer MS, Liston RM; Maternal Health Study Group of Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Sep;209(3):209.e1-8.(Liu et al., 2013)
5.1.3.1.2. Value of Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of cesarean delivery. Cubal A, Carvalho J, Ferreira MJ, Rodrigues G, Carmo OD. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013 Sep;39(9):1391-6.(Cubal, Carvalho, Ferreira, Rodrigues, & Carmo, 2013)
5.1.3.1.3. Labor induction with prostaglandin E2: characteristics of response and prediction of failure. Melamed N, Yariv O, Hiersch L, Wiznitzer A, Meizner I, Yogev Y. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jan;26(2):132-6.(Melamed et al., 2013)
5.1.3.1.4. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Sep;286(3):739-53.(Teixeira, Lunet, Rodrigues, & Barros, 2012)
5.1.3.1.5. Validity of clinical and ultrasound variables to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Bertossa P, Novakov Mikic A, Stupar ZT, Milatovic S, Boulvain M, Irion O, de Tejada BM. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;120(1):53-9.(Bertossa et al., 2012)
5.1.3.1.6. Prelabor rupture of membranes at term requiring labor induction - a feature of occult fetal cephalopelvic disproportion? Chan BC, Leung WC, Lao TT. J Perinat Med. 2009;37(2):118-23.(Chan, Leung, & Lao, 2009)
5.1.3.2. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 May;29(5):568-73.
Cited by as listed below
5.1.3.2.1. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013
Nov;42(5):500-8.(Verhoeven et al., 2013)
5.1.3.2.2. Value of Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of cesarean delivery. Cubal A, Carvalho J, Ferreira MJ, Rodrigues G, Carmo OD. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013
Sep;39(9):1391-6.(Cubal et al., 2013)
5.1.3.2.3. Immediate compared with delayed oxytocin after amniotomy labor induction in parous women: a randomized controlled trial. Tan PC, Soe MZ, Sulaiman S, Omar SZ. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;121(2 Pt
1):253-9.(Tan et al., 2013)
5.1.3.2.4. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Sep;286(3):739-53.(Teixeira et al., 2012)
5.1.3.2.5. Validity of clinical and ultrasound variables to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Bertossa P, Novakov Mikic A, Stupar ZT, Milatovic S, Boulvain M, Irion O, de Tejada BM. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jul;120(1):53-9.(Bertossa et al., 2012)
5.1.3.2.6. Sonographic cervical length as a predictor of type of delivery after induced labor. Gómez-Laencina AM, García CP, Asensio LV, Ponce
JA, Martínez MS, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Jun;285(6):1523-8.(Gomez-Laencina et al., 2012)
5.1.3.2.7. Interruption of a study of cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate due to adverse effects. Hatanaka AR, Moron AF, Auxiliadora de Aquino MM, de Souza E, de Silva Bussamra LC, Araujo Júnior E, Mattar R. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(2):175-80.(Hatanaka et al., 2012)
5.1.3.2.8. [Different methods for the induction of labour in postterm pregnancy].
Winer N. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011 Dec;40(8):796-811(Kang et al., 2010)
5.1.3.2.9. Additional effects of the cervical length measurement in women with preterm contractions: a systematic review. Vis JY, Kuin RA, Grobman WA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Opmeer BC. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Sep;284(3):521-6.(Vis et al., 2011)
5.1.3.2.10. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2011 Aug;38(2):198-204.(Park et al., 2011)
5.1.3.2.11. Effect of membrane sweeping on cervical length by transvaginal ultrasonography and impact of cervical shortening on cesarean
delivery. Tan PC, Khine PP, Sabdin NH, Vallikkannu N, Sulaiman S. J Ultrasound Med. 2011 Feb;30(2):227-33.(Tan et al., 2011)
5.1.3.2.12. Degree of cervical shortening after initial induction of labor as a predictor of subsequent successful induction. Kang WS, Park KH, Kim
SN, Shin DM, Hong JS, Jung HJ. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;36(6):749-54.(Kang et al., 2010)
5.1.3.2.13. A randomized controlled trial of 24-hour vaginal dinoprostone pessary compared to gel for induction of labor in term pregnancies with a Bishop score < or = 4. Triglia MT, Palamara F, Lojacono A, Prefumo F, Frusca T. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010
May;89(5):651-7.(Triglia et al., 2010)
5.1.3.2.14. Prediction of preterm birth: nonsonographic cervical methods. Ross MG, Beall MH. Semin Perinatol. 2009 Oct;33(5):312-6.(Ross & Beall, 2009)
5.1.3.2.15. Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, Baytur Y. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009
Sep;280(3):357-62.(Uyar et al., 2009)
5.1.3.2.16. Transvaginal sonography of cervical length and Bishop score as predictors of successful induction of term labor: the effect of parity.
Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36(1):35-9.(Tan, Vallikkannu, et al., 2009) 5.1.3.2.17. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in pregnancy. Chao AS, Chao A, Hsieh PC. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Sep;47(3):291-5.(Chao et al., 2008)
5.1.3.2.18. The secret cervix. Rozenberg P. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug;32(2):126-7.(Rozenberg, 2008)
5.1.3.2.19. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug;32(2):199-204.(Eggebo et al., 2008)
5.1.3.2.20. Digital and transvaginal ultrasound cervical assessment for prediction of successful labor induction. Tanir HM, Sener T, Yildiz Z. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Jan;100(1):52-5.(Tanir, Sener, & Yildiz, 2008)