{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,11,1]],"date-time":"2026-11-01T01:24:44Z","timestamp":1793496284587,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"9","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,6]],"date-time":"2025-10-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1759708800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,25]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2025-0183_abs_001\">\n                    <jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness and cesarean delivery (CD) and compare the capacity two measurement methods of LUS thickness in the prediction of successful induction of labor (IOL).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2025-0183_abs_002\">\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This was a prospective cross-sectional study of consecutive pregnancies undergoing IOL between 2022 and 2023. The inclusion criteria were women with singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation whose Bishop scores were below six undergoing IOL after 37\u00a0weeks of gestation. Patients with a history of CD, fetal anomalies, multiple gestations, and any contraindication to vaginal delivery were excluded from the study group.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2025-0183_abs_003\">\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A total of 124 pregnant women were included in the study. LUS (10.13\u00a0\u00b1\u00a01.98\u202fmm vs. 7.07\u00a0\u00b1\u00a01.66\u202fmm, p&lt;0.001) and myometrial LUS (MLUS) (5.63\u00a0\u00b1\u00a01.48\u202fmm vs. 4.10\u00a0\u00b1\u00a01.22\u202fmm, p&lt;0.001) in the CD group were significantly higher than in the non-CD group. In the logistic regression analyses, significant independent effects of height (OR:0.88, 95\u202f% CI: 0.79\u20130.98) and LUS (OR:2.71, 95\u202f% CI: 1.66\u20134.43) values were observed in the prediction of CD. In the ROC analysis, both LUS (AUC 0.882, p&lt;0.001) and MLUS (AUC 0.756, p&lt;0.001) significantly predicted CD with an optimal cut-off value of 9.8\u202fmm (75.0\u202f% sensitivity, 92.6\u202f% specificity) for LUS, and 5.1\u202fmm (68.8\u202f% sensitivity, 82.4\u202f% specificity) for MLUS.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"j_jpm-2025-0183_abs_004\">\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Ultrasonographic evaluation of LUS before IOL is a promising ultrasound parameter to predict CD. Although LUS and MLUS thickness measurements can be used to predict CD, LUS thickness has better sensitivity and specificity compared to MLUS thickness.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,3]],"date-time":"2025-10-03T06:57:36Z","timestamp":1759474656000},"page":"1253-1260","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Low uterine segment thickness in the prediction of cesarean delivery after induction of labor"],"prefix":"10.1515","volume":"53","author":[{"given":"Gizem Elif","family":"Dizdaro\u011fullar\u0131","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Perinatology , Health Science University, Kartal Dr.Lutfi K\u0131rdar City Hospital , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Aylin","family":"Y\u0131lmaz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Perinatology , Health Science University, Kartal Dr.Lutfi K\u0131rdar City Hospital , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Beyzanur Kurtcephe","family":"Kahyao\u011flu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Health Science University, Kartal Dr.Lutfi K\u0131rdar City Hospital , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"\u0130smail","family":"Ba\u011flar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Health Science University, Kartal Dr.Lutfi K\u0131rdar City Hospital , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Asl\u0131han","family":"\u00d6zt\u00fcrk","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Health Science University, Kartal Dr.Lutfi K\u0131rdar City Hospital , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3593-5063","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Emine Eda","family":"Akal\u0131n","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine , Bahcesehir University , Istanbul , T\u00fcrkiye"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"374","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386\u201397. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5.","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sanchez-Ramos, L, Levine, LD, Sciscione, AC, Mozurkewich, EL, Ramsey, PS, Adair, CD, et al.. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;230:S669\u201395. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2023.02.009. Epub 2023 Jul 13. PMID: 38462252.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2023.02.009"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gibson, KS, Waters, TP. Measures of success: prediction of successful labor induction. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:475\u201382. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1053\/j.semperi.2015.07.012.","DOI":"10.1053\/j.semperi.2015.07.012"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_004","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ba\u00f1os, N, Migliorelli, F, Posadas, E, Ferreri, J, Palacio, M. Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation. Fetal Diagn Ther 2015;38:161\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000433429. Epub 2015 Jun 26. Erratum in. 2015;38(4):268. d\u200boi: 10.1159\/000437343. PMID: 26138441.","DOI":"10.1159\/000433429"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_005","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Heffner, LJ, Elkin, E, Fretts, RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:287\u201393. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0029-7844(03)00531-3.","DOI":"10.1097\/00006250-200308000-00014"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"San Rom\u00e1n, GA. Concerns regarding a validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean delivery after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:421\u20132. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.04.061.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.04.061"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Beninati, MJ, Ramos, SZ, Danilack, VA, Has, P, Savitz, DA, Werner, EF. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136:402\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003938. PMID: 32649502.","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003938"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Park, KH. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement in predicting failed labor induction and cesarean delivery for failure to progress in nulliparous women. J Kor Med Sci 2007;22:722\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3346\/jkms.2007.22.4.722.","DOI":"10.3346\/jkms.2007.22.4.722"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kamel, R, Garcia, FSM, Poon, LC, Youssef, A. The usefulness of ultrasound before induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021; 3: 100423. 6, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajogmf.2021.100423, . Eggebo TM, Okland I, Heien C, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88: 325\u2013331. 7.","DOI":"10.1080\/00016340902730417"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dagdeviren, E, Aslan Cetin, B, Aydogan Mathyk, B, Koroglu, N, Topcu, EG, Yuksel, MA. Can uterocervical angles successfully predict induction of labor in nulliparous women? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;228:87\u201391. 9. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2018.06.014.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2018.06.014"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_011","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":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"VerhoevenCJ, OBC, OeiSG, LV, vanderPostJA, MBW. 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. 8.","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.12467"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_013","unstructured":"Bishop, EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266\u20138."},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira, C, Lunet, N, Rodrigues, T, Barros, H. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:739\u201353. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00404-012-2341-3.","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-012-2341-3"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_015","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":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"FukudaM, FK, ShimizuT, BE, Bujold, E. Ultrasound assessment of lower uterine segment thickness during pregnancy, labour, and the postpartum period. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016;38:134\u201340. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jogc.2015.12.009.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jogc.2015.12.009"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_017","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jastrow, N, Demers, S, Chaillet, N, Girard, M, Gauthier, RJ, Pasquier, JC, et al.. Lower uterine segment thickness to prevent uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcomes: a multicenter prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:604.e1\u2013604.e6. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2016.06.018. Epub 2016 Jun 21. PMID: 27342045.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2016.06.018"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_018","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jastrow, N, Chaillet, N, Roberge, S, Morency, AM, Lacasse, Y, Bujold, E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstetr Gynaecol Canada 2010;32:321\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s1701-2163(16)34475-9.","DOI":"10.1016\/S1701-2163(16)34475-9"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Swift, BE, Ps Shah, D. Farine Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 2019;98:830\u201341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/aogs.13585.","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.13585"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kok, N, Wiersma, IC, Opmeer, BC, Graaf, Imde, Mol, BW, Pajkrt, E. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42:132\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/uog.12479.","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.12479"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_021","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hamza, A, Radosa, J, Gerlinger, C, Solomayer, EF, Str\u00f6der, R, Meyberg-Solomayer, G. Cervical and lower uterine parameter ultrasound and elastographic parameters for the prediction of a successful induction of labor. Ultraschall Med 2021;42:520\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/a-1131-7736. English. Epub 2020 Mar 20. PMID: 32198732.","DOI":"10.1055\/a-1131-7736"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_022","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Del Campo, A, Aiartzaguena, A, Su\u00e1rez, B, Rodr\u00edguez, A, Rodr\u00edguez, L, Burgos, J. Lower uterine segment thickness assessed by transvaginal ultrasound before labor induction: reproducibility analysis and relationship with delivery outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2023;61:399\u2013407. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/uog.26024. Epub 2023 Feb 6. PMID: 35802514.","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.26024"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_023","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bujold, E, Jastrow, N, Simoneau, J, Brunet, S, Gauthier, RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:320.e1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.06.014. PMID: 19733288.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.06.014"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cheung, VY. Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005;27:674\u201381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s1701-2163(16)30545-x.","DOI":"10.1016\/S1701-2163(16)30545-X"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_025","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sen, S, Malik, S, Salhan, S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;87:215\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijgo.2004.07.023.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2004.07.023"},{"key":"2025121815535103943_j_jpm-2025-0183_ref_026","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gotoh, H, Masuzaki, H, Yoshida, A, Yoshimura, S, Miyamura, T, Ishimaru, T. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:596\u2013600. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/00006250-200004000-00022.","DOI":"10.1097\/00006250-200004000-00022"}],"container-title":["Journal of Perinatal Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]],"date-time":"2025-12-18T15:54:56Z","timestamp":1766073296000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183\/html"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,6]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,28]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,25]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/jpm-2025-0183","relation":{},"ISSN":["0300-5577","1619-3997"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0300-5577","type":"print"},{"value":"1619-3997","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,6]]}}}