ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022
A force-measuring device combined with ultrasound-based elastography for assessment of the uterine cervix.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for strain elastography of the uterine cervix.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Reassessing the Bishop score in clinical practice for induction of labor leading to vaginal delivery and for evaluation of cervix ripening.Placenta and reproductive medicine · 2023Article
- Advances in the clinical application of ultrasound elastography in uterine imaging.Insights into imaging · 2022Review
- A force-measuring device combined with ultrasound-based elastography for assessment of the uterine cervix.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn this feasibility study, we hypothesize that the evaluation of cervical biomechanical strength can be improved if cervical length measurement is supplemented with quantitative elastography, which is a technique based on conventional ultrasound elastography combined with a force-measuring device. Our aims were to: (a) develop a force-measuring device; (b) introduce a cervical elastography index (CEI) and a cervical strength index (CSI; defined as cervical length × CEI); (c) evaluate how these indexes assess the cervical softening that takes place during normal pregnancy; and (d) how these indexes predict the cervical dilatation time from 4 to 10 cm. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn electronic force-measuring device was mounted on the handle of the transvaginal probe, allowing for force measurement when conducting elastography. The study group concerned with normal cervical softening included 44 unselected pregnant women. Outcomes were CEI and CSI at different gestational ages. The study group for labor induction included 26 singleton term pregnant women admitted for labor induction. Outcome was defined as cervical dilatation time from 4 to 10 cm. Elastography measured the changes in mean gray value (intensity) during manual compressions. Region of interest was set within the anterior cervical lip.
resultsWe found that the mean of all variables regarding cervical softening decreased from early to late pregnancy: ie cervical length from 34 to 29 mm, CEI from 0.17 to 0.11 N, and CSI from 5.9 to 3.1 N mm. Moreover, the cervical dilatation time during labor induction was associated with CEI, although not statistically significantly (area under the ROC curve of 0.67), but not with the Bishop score, the cervical length, or the CSI.
conclusionsWe propose that quantitative elastography based on changes in the intensity of the B-mode ultrasound recording, in combination with a force-measuring device on the handle of the vaginal probe, deserves further investigation as an approach for evaluation of cervical biomechanical strength.
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.