ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
A comparative study between modified Bishop score and transvaginal sonography to predict successful induction of labor.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Modified Bishop score (MBS) and cervical length determination by transvaginal sonography (TVS) are the two methods for predicting successful vaginal delivery based on pre-induction favourability of the cervix. Aims and Objectives: This study compared both methods for predicting successful vaginal delivery. The primary objective was to compare the predictive value of MBS and TVS in predicting successful induction of labor. The secondary objective was to obtain the cut-off score of MBS and TVS for successful induction of labor. Methods: A prospective study was done involving 100 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor. TVS was done to measure the cervical length before induction of labor. MBS was also calculated for all the patients. Labor was induced with prostaglandins. Labor induction was considered successful if there was an onset of uterine contractions and cervical dilatation within 24 h of induction. Results: For successful induction of labor, the cutoff of cervical length by TVS and MBS was 2.5 cm and 6, respectively. Cervical length assessment by TVS performed better than the MBS (sensitivity 61.8% vs. 28.9%, Specificity 95.8% vs. 100%). Conclusion: MBS and cervical length measurement by sonography both are good predictors of successful induction of labor. Cervical length measurement by TVS provides a better prediction of the likelihood of vaginal delivery.
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.