ArticleSAGE open medicine2023
Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix in predicting successful outcome of induction of labour.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global and regional incidence of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Cervical Ultrasound Assessment vs Bishop Score in Predicting Labor Induction Outcomes Among Nulliparous Women.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the stiffness of cervix and determine its significance in predicting successful outcome of induction of labour. The primary objective was to determine the differences in elastography indices of different areas of cervix between the outcome groups of successful and failed induction of labour. A secondary objective was to find out the correlation of these elastography indices with Bishop's score and cervical length. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study conducted over a period of 6 months on pregnant women admitted in the labour room for induction of labour. Establishment of adequate regular uterine contractions - at least three contractions lasting 40-45 s in a 10-min period - was taken as end point for successful outcome of induction of labour. Even after 24 h of initiation of induction of labour, regular, adequate and painful uterine contractions were not established, then induction of labour was described as having failed. Prior to induction, cervical length measurement, Bishop's scoring and elastographic evaluation of the cervix were done by stress-strain elastography. A colour map was produced from purple to red and a five-step scale - the elastography index - was used to describe the various parts of the cervix. The differences between elastography indices of different parts of cervix were estimated using Mann-Whitney U test. Correlation of the indices with cervical length and Bishop's score was determined by Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 64 women were included in the study. A significant difference ( Conclusion: Elastography index of internal os can be used to predict outcome of induction of labour. Cervical elastography is a promising new technique for cervical consistency assessment. Further larger studies are required to determine some cut-off point for elastography index of internal os in prediction of outcome of induction of labour and to strongly establish the usefulness of cervical elastography for pregnancy management, preventing preterm delivery and establishment of cut-off points to determine successful induction.
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.