Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2022 Jan 26;17(1):e0262387.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262387. eCollection 2022.

Pre-induction cervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasound versus Bishops cervical scoring as predictors of successful induction of labour in term pregnancies: A hospital-based comparative clinical trial

Zainab Hananah Abang Abdullah  1 , Kah Teik Chew  2 , V Ramesh V Velayudham  3 , Zainab Yahaya  3 , Amilia Afzan Mohd Jamil  1 , Muhammad Azrai Abu  2 , Nur Azurah Abdul Ghani  2 , Nor Azlin Mohamed Ismail  2
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Pre-induction cervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasound versus Bishops cervical scoring as predictors of successful induction of labour in term pregnancies: A hospital-based comparative clinical trial

Zainab Hananah Abang Abdullah et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the association between transvaginal ultrasound scan of cervix and Bishop's score in predicting successful induction of labour, cut-off points and patients' tolerability and acceptance for both procedures.

Design: A comparative clinical trial.

Setting: A tertiary hospital in Selangor, Malaysia.

Participants: 294 women planned for elective induction of labour for various indications were included. All women had transvaginal ultrasound to assess the cervical length and digital vaginal examination to assess the Bishop cervical scoring by separate investigators before induction of labour.

Primary outcome measure: To evaluate the association of the cervical length by transvaginal ultrasound scan and Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labour.

Secondary outcome measure: Variables associated with successful induction of labour and patients' tolerability and acceptance for transvaginal ultrasound scan of cervix.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference among the vaginal and Caesarean delivery groups in terms of mean maternal age, height, weight, body mass index, ethnicity and gestational age at induction. Vaginal delivery occurred in 207 women (70.4%) and 87 women (29.6%) delivered via Caesarean section. There was a high degree of correlation between the cervical length and Bishop score (r-value 0.745; p <0.001). Sonographic assessment of cervical length demonstrated a comparable accuracy in comparison to Bishop score. Analysis using ROC curves noted an optimal cut-off value of ≤27mm for cervical length and Bishop score of ≥ 4, with a sensitivity of 69.1% vs 67%, specificity 60.9% vs 55%, and area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.672 and 0.643 respectively (p <0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that parity (OR 2.70), cervical length (OR 0.925), Bishop score (OR 1.272) and presence of funnelling (OR 3.292) were highly significant as independent predictors of success labour induction. Women also expressed significantly less discomfort with transvaginal ultrasound compared with digital vaginal examination.

Conclusion: Sonographic assessment of cervical measurement predicts the success of induction of labour with similar diagnostic accuracy with conventional Bishop score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. All authors are responsible for the content and writing of this paper.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Transvaginal ultrasound scan of cervix, showing length of 10.4 mm.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Flow chart of participants.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves for cervical length (A) and Bishop score (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Getahun D. Epidemiologic considerations: scope of problem and disparity concerns. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2014;57(2):326. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000021 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns and outcomes of induction of labour in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Neonatal Health. PloS one. 2013;8(6):e65612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065612 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Research. 2019;8. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17587.1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cole R, Howie P, Macnaughton M. Elective induction of labour: a randomised prospective trial. The Lancet. 1975;305(7910):767–70. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92435-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sue-A-Quan AK, Hannah ME, Cohen MM, Foster GA, Liston RM. Effect of labour induction on rates of stillbirth and cesarean section in post-term pregnancies. Cmaj. 1999;160(8):1145–9. - PMC - PubMed