ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of the Bishop Score in Comparison With Ultrasonographic Markers in Predicting Successful Induction of Labor.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- The Bishop Index and Birth Outcomes in Nulliparous Women Undergoing Labor Induction: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention, yet accurately predicting successful vaginal delivery remains challenging. The Bishop score is widely used to assess cervical readiness, although its predictive performance is limited by subjectivity and variability. Recent studies suggest that ultrasound-based or composite scoring systems may improve the prediction of induction outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare, within a prospective cohort of women undergoing labor induction at ≥34 weeks of gestation, the predictive performance of the Bishop score and a novel ultrasound-based composite induction score for the primary outcome of vaginal delivery. Methods This prospective observational cohort study included 200 women undergoing IOL at ≥34 weeks of gestation for standard obstetric indications. Prior to induction, all participants underwent digital cervical examination for calculation of the Bishop score and standardized ultrasound assessment. The novel induction score integrated sonographic parameters, including cervical length, fetal head characteristics, cervical elastography, and cervical angulation. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess predictive performance. Results The mean maternal age was 30.8 ± 5.4 years, and 56.0% of participants were nulliparous. Vaginal delivery occurred in the majority of cases. The Bishop score demonstrated good predictive ability for vaginal delivery (AUC 0.784, 95% CI 0.686-0.882; p < 0.001). The novel induction score showed significantly higher discriminative performance (AUC 0.891, 95% CI 0.827-0.955; p < 0.001). Clinically relevant cutoffs of the new score provided a more favorable balance between sensitivity and specificity compared with the Bishop score. Conclusions While the Bishop score remains a useful baseline tool, the novel ultrasound-based induction score demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for vaginal delivery. These findings suggest that incorporating objective sonographic parameters into pre-induction assessment may improve risk stratification and support individualized clinical decision-making. External validation is warranted before routine clinical implementation.
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.