ArticleJournal of ultrasound2018
Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of cervical dilatation and its value in detecting active labor.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of non-invasive methods for assessing the progress of labor in the first stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Pooled it
- Mapping Intrusive and Non-Intrusive Ultrasound Technologies and Devices Used in Vaginal Examinations During Intrapartum: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Intrapartum sonography for predicting successful vaginal delivery in term nulliparous women: a prospective observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Membrane Status and Reliability of Intrapartum Transperineal Ultrasound in Cervical Dilatation Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Intrapartum ultrasound for cervical dilatation: Inter- and intra-observer agreement.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Intrapartum ultrasound and mother acceptance: A study with informed consent and questionnaire.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023Article
- Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review.The ultrasound journal · 2021Review
- Acceptability of intrapartum ultrasound by mothers in an African population.Journal of ultrasound · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to examine the agreement between ultrasound and digital vaginal examination in assessing cervical dilatation in an African population and to assess the value of ultrasound in detecting active labor.
methodA cross-sectional study was conducted in a teaching hospital in Ghana between April and September of 2016. Anterior-posterior and transverse diameters of cervical dilatation were measured with ultrasound and the mean value was compared with digital vaginal examination in 195 women in labor. Agreement between methods was examined with correlation coefficients and with Bland-Altman plots. Active labor was defined when cervix was dilated ≥ 4 cm with vaginal examinations. ROC curve analysis was conducted on the diagnostic performance of ultrasound in detecting active labor.
resultsData were analyzed in 175 out of 195 (90%) cases where ultrasound could clearly visualize the cervix. The remaining 20 cases were all determined by digital vaginal examination as advanced cervical dilatation (≥ 8 cm), advanced head station (≥ + 2), and with ruptured membranes. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.83) and the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.81). Bland-Altman analysis obtained a mean difference of - 0.03 cm (95% CI - 0.18 to 0.12) with zero included in the CI intervals, indicating no significant difference between methods. Limits of agreement were from - 2.01 to 1.95 cm. Ultrasound predicted active labor with 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-0.99) as the area under the ROC curve.
conclusionUltrasound measurements showed good agreement with digital vaginal examinations in assessing cervical dilatation during labor and ultrasound may be used to detect active labor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.