{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,21]],"date-time":"2026-06-21T04:40:01Z","timestamp":1782016801050,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"9","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,11,25]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2022-0140_abs_001\">\n                    <jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Induction of labour (IOL) is of increasing prevalence worldwide and reliable prediction of its successful outcome is important. Traditional clinical methods for predicting successful IOL outcomes have been supplemented with newer technologies. The aim of this study was to compare transvaginal sonographic (TVS) cervical length measurement with Bishop score in predicting labour induction outcomes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2022-0140_abs_002\">\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study included pregnant women with term pregnancy, indication for IOL and unfavourable cervix (Bishop score &gt;6) who had TVS performed prior to IOL. Exclusion critetia were regular contractions, ruptured membranes, non-cephalic presentation, uterine scar and pregnancy complications potentially influencing study outcomes. Outcomes measured were successful IOL defined as achievement of active phase of labour and vaginal delivery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Statistical significance was defined as p&lt;0.05.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2022-0140_abs_003\">\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Among 112 studied participants, IOL was successful in 101 (90.2%) pregnant women. AUC for Bishop score &gt;2 was 0.831 (95% CI, 0.744\u20130.917, p&lt;0.001) and for cervical length &lt;30\u00a0mm 0.679 (95% CI 0.514\u20130.844, p&lt;0.052). A total of 81 (72.3%) pregnant women delivered vaginally; AUC for Bishop score &gt;2 was 0.754 (95% CI 0.648\u20130.861, p&lt;0.001) and for cervical length &lt;30\u00a0mm 0.602 (95% CI 0.484\u20130.720, p=0.092) which was the only insignificant predictor.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2022-0140_abs_004\">\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Bishop score &gt;2 is a better predictor for both successful IOL and vaginal delivery among induced women with term pregnancy and unfavourable cervix compared to cervical length &lt;30\u00a0mm.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,2]],"date-time":"2022-06-02T12:04:18Z","timestamp":1654171458000},"page":"1198-1202","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Comparison of transvaginal sonographic cervical length measurement and Bishop score for predicting labour induction outcomes"],"prefix":"10.1515","volume":"50","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5992-5030","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Katja","family":"Vince","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics , University Hospital Merkur , Zagreb , Croatia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-2336-0861","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Tamara","family":"Polji\u010danin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department for Biostatistics , Croatian Institute of Public Health , Zagreb , Croatia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1693-7474","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ratko","family":"Matijevi\u0107","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics , University Hospital Merkur , Zagreb , Croatia"},{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics , School of Medicine , University of Zagreb , Zagreb , Croatia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"374","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,3]]},"reference":[{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_001","unstructured":"WHO. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. WHO; 2018. 6\u20137. Available from: https:\/\/apps.who.int\/iris\/bitstream\/handle\/10665\/277233\/9789241550413-eng.pdf [Accessed 7 Apr 2022]."},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Alfirevic, Z, Keeney, E, Dowswell, T, Welton, NJ, Medley, N, Dias, S, et al.. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1\u2013584. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3310\/hta20650.","DOI":"10.3310\/hta20650"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Abisowo, OY, Oyinyechi, AJ, Olusegun, FA, Oyedokun, OY, Motunrayo, AF, Abimbola, OT. Feto-maternal outcome of induced versus spontaneous labour in a Nigerian tertiary maternity unit. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;34:21\u20137.","DOI":"10.4103\/TJOG.TJOG_59_16"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_004","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lindegren, L, Stuart, A, Fagerberg, MC, K\u00e4ll\u00e9n, K. Retrospective study of maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction compared to spontaneous start of labour in women with one previous birth in uncomplicated pregnancies\u00a0\u226541+3. J Perinat Med 2020;49:23\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/jpm-2020-0312.","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2020-0312"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_005","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Obeidat, RA, Almaaitah, M, Ben-Sadon, A, Istaiti, D, Rawashdeh, H, Hamadneh, S, et al.. Clinical predictive factors for vaginal delivery following induction of labour among pregnant women in Jordan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:685. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12884-021-04151-3.","DOI":"10.1186\/s12884-021-04151-3"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Freret, TS, Woods, GT, James, KE, Kaimal, AJ, Clapp, MA. Incidence of and risk factors for failed induction of labor using a contemporary definition. Obstet Gynecol 2021;137:497\u2013504. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/AOG.0000000000004257.","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000004257"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Vince, K, Matijevi\u0107, R. Comparison of intracervical and intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for induction of labor in term pregnancies with unfavorable cervix: randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022;270:100\u20134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2022.01.004.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2022.01.004"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_008","unstructured":"Wormer, KC, Bauer, A, Williford, AE. Bishop score. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing 2022; 2021."},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Marconi, AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res 2019;8:F1000. Faculty Rev-1829. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/f1000research.17587.1.","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.17587.1"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Garcia-Simon, R, Oros, D, Gracia-C\u00f3lera, D, Moreno, E, Paules, C, Ca\u00f1izares, S, et al.. Cervix assessment for the management of labor induction: reliability of cervical length and Bishop score determined by residents. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015;41:377\u201382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jog.12553.","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.12553"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Khazardoost, S, Vahdani, FG, Latifi, S, Borna, S, Tahani, M, Rezaei, MA, et al.. Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12884-016-1090-x.","DOI":"10.1186\/s12884-016-1090-x"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Strobel, MK, Eveslage, M, K\u00f6ster, HA, M\u00f6llers, M, Braun, J, de Santis, C, et al.. Cervical elastography strain ratio and strain pattern for the prediction of a successful induction of labour. J Perinat Med 2020;49:195\u2013202. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/jpm-2020-0189.","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2020-0189"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_013","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Meier, K, Parrish, J, D\u2019Souza, R. Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019;98:1100\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/aogs.13589.","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.13589"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kolkman, DG, Verhoeven, CJ, Brinkhorst, SJ, van der Post, JA, Pajkrt, E, Opmeer, BC, et al.. The bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:625\u201330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/s-0032-1331024.","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0032-1331024"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_015","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Abdullah, ZHA, Chew, KT, Velayudham, VRV, Yahaya, Z, Jamil, AAM, Abu, MA, et al.. 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. PLoS One 2022;17: e0262387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0262387.","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0262387"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hatfield, AS, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Kaunitz, AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:186\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2007.04.050.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2007.04.050"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_017","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Uyar, Y, Erbay, G, Demir, BC, Baytur, Y. Comparison of the bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009;280:357\u201362. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00404-008-0915-x.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-008-0915-x"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_018","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Athulathmudali, SR, Patabendige, M, Chandrasinghe, SK, De Silva, PHP. Transvaginal two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of cervical volume to predict the outcome of the induction of labour: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:433. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12884-021-03929-9.","DOI":"10.1186\/s12884-021-03929-9"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Londero, AP, Schmitz, R, Bertozzi, S, Driul, L, Fruscalzo, A. Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinat Med 2016;44:167\u201378. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/jpm-2015-0035.","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2015-0035"},{"key":"2026042607424646520_j_jpm-2022-0140_ref_020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Verhoeven, CJ, Opmeer, BC, Oei, SG, Latour, V, van der Post, JA, Mol, BW. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:500\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/uog.12467.","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.12467"}],"container-title":["Journal of Perinatal Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]],"date-time":"2026-04-26T07:42:57Z","timestamp":1777189377000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140\/html"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,3]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,3]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,11,25]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/jpm-2022-0140","relation":{},"ISSN":["0300-5577","1619-3997"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0300-5577","type":"print"},{"value":"1619-3997","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,6,3]]}}}