↓ Skip to main content

Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010762.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ifeanyichukwu U Ezebialu, Ahizechukwu C Eke, George U Eleje, Chukwuemeka E Nwachukwu

Abstract

Induction of labour is the artificial initiation of labour in a pregnant woman after the age of fetal viability but without any objective evidence of active phase labour and with intact fetal membranes. The need for induction of labour may arise due to a problem in the mother, her fetus or both, and the procedure may be carried out at or before term. Obstetricians have long known that for this to be successful, it is important that the uterine cervix (the neck of the womb) has favourable characteristics in terms of readiness to go into the labour state. To compare Bishop score with any other method for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening in women admitted for induction of labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs comparing Bishop score with any other methods of pre-induction cervical assessment in women admitted for induction of labour. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Studies published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion if they provided sufficient information.Comparisons could include the following.1. Bishop score versus transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS).2. Bishop score versus Insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1).3. Bishop score versus vaginal fetal fibronectin (fFN).However, we only identified data for a comparison of Bishop score versus TVUS. Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy. We included two trials that recruited a total of 234 women. The overall risk of bias was low for the two studies. Both studies compared Bishop score withTVUS.The two included studies did not show any clear difference between the Bishop score and TVUS groups for the following main outcomes: vaginal birth (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25, moderate quality evidence), caesarean delivery (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34, moderate quality evidence), neonatal admission into neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.71, moderate quality evidence). Both studies only provided median data in relation to induction-delivery interval and reported no clear difference between the Bishop and TVUS groups. Perinatal mortality was not reported in the included studies.For the review's secondary outcomes, the need for misoprostol for cervical ripening was more frequent in the TVUS group compared to the Bishop score group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.66, two studies, 234 women, moderate quality evidence). In contrast, there were no clear differences between the Bishop scope and TVUS groups in terms of meconium staining of the amniotic fluid, fetal heart rate abnormality in labour, and Apgar score less than seven. Only one trial reported median data on the induction-delivery interval and induction to active phase interval, the trialist reported no difference between the Bishop group and the TVUS group for this outcome. Neither of the included studies reported on uterine rupture. Moderate quality evidence from two small RCTs involving 234 women that compared two different methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening (Bishop score and TVUS) did not demonstrate superiority of one method over the other in terms of the main outcomes assessed in this review. We did not identify any data relating to perinatal mortality. Whilst use of TVUS was associated with an increased need for misoprostol for cervical ripening, both methods could be complementary.The choice of a particular method of assessing pre-induction cervical ripening may differ depending on the environment and need where one is practicing since some methods (i.e. TVUS) may not be readily available and affordable in resource-poor settings where the sequelae of labour and its management is prevalent.The evidence in this review is based on two studies that enrolled a small number of women and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of TVUS over the standard digital vaginal assessment in pre-induction cervical ripening. Further adequately powered RCTs involving TVUS and the Bishop score and including other methods of pre-induction cervical ripening assessment are warranted. Such studies need to address uterine rupture, perinatal mortality, optimal cut-off value of the cervical length and Bishop score to classify women as having favourable or unfavourable cervices and cost should be included as an outcome.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Postgraduate 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 22 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#11,143,455
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,957
of 291,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#208
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.