Bishop 评分与经阴道超声宫颈评估的比较 预测引产成功率的 Bishop 评分与经阴道超声宫颈评估的比较

Subhi Srivastava, Sendhil Coumary A
{"title":"Bishop 评分与经阴道超声宫颈评估的比较 预测引产成功率的 Bishop 评分与经阴道超声宫颈评估的比较","authors":"Subhi Srivastava, Sendhil Coumary A","doi":"10.18231/j.ijogr.2024.053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Induction of labor for medical or obstetric indications is a common practice in modern obstetrics. Evaluation of the cervix by Bishop’s score is universally used to predict the success of induction of labor. But it is a subjective method and many studies have shown that it is not a good indicator of success of induction. To compare Bishop’s scoring system and trans-vaginal sonographic assessment of cervix in predicting the successful outcome of induction of labor.This was an observational study conducted in a tertiary care center. 120 patients who met the selection criteria were included. Prior to the induction of labor the Bishop’s score and the sonographic scoring was assigned. Successful induction was defined as the patient entering the active phase of labor. 84% of participating women entered the active phase of labor. While 72.6% women had a normal vaginal delivery, 67.8% women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction. The TVS score (MGPICSS) of ≥2 predicted the successful induction with a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 39.3% and AUC 0.74. In comparison, the Bishop score of ≥4 had a specificity of 75% and sensitivity of 44% and AUC 0.56. The prediction of delivery within 24 hours at the MGPICSS of ≥2 had a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 42.9% and AUC 0.76. For the same, the Bishop’s score of ≥4 had specificity of 83.3% and sensitivity of 45.5% and AUC 0.71. TVS assessment of cervix is a better predictor of successful labor induction in comparison to Bishop’s score.","PeriodicalId":13288,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research","volume":"39 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Bishop’s score with transvaginal sonographic cerviComparison of Bishop’s score with transvaginal sonographic cervical assessment to predict success of induction of labor\",\"authors\":\"Subhi Srivastava, Sendhil Coumary A\",\"doi\":\"10.18231/j.ijogr.2024.053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Induction of labor for medical or obstetric indications is a common practice in modern obstetrics. Evaluation of the cervix by Bishop’s score is universally used to predict the success of induction of labor. But it is a subjective method and many studies have shown that it is not a good indicator of success of induction. To compare Bishop’s scoring system and trans-vaginal sonographic assessment of cervix in predicting the successful outcome of induction of labor.This was an observational study conducted in a tertiary care center. 120 patients who met the selection criteria were included. Prior to the induction of labor the Bishop’s score and the sonographic scoring was assigned. Successful induction was defined as the patient entering the active phase of labor. 84% of participating women entered the active phase of labor. While 72.6% women had a normal vaginal delivery, 67.8% women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction. The TVS score (MGPICSS) of ≥2 predicted the successful induction with a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 39.3% and AUC 0.74. In comparison, the Bishop score of ≥4 had a specificity of 75% and sensitivity of 44% and AUC 0.56. The prediction of delivery within 24 hours at the MGPICSS of ≥2 had a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 42.9% and AUC 0.76. For the same, the Bishop’s score of ≥4 had specificity of 83.3% and sensitivity of 45.5% and AUC 0.71. TVS assessment of cervix is a better predictor of successful labor induction in comparison to Bishop’s score.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research\",\"volume\":\"39 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijogr.2024.053\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijogr.2024.053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

因医学或产科指征而引产是现代产科的常见做法。用 Bishop 评分来评估宫颈是预测引产成功与否的通用方法。但这是一种主观方法,许多研究表明它并不是引产成功的良好指标。本研究是一项观察性研究,在一家三级医疗中心进行。本研究是在一家三级医疗中心进行的观察性研究,共纳入了 120 名符合选择标准的患者。引产前进行毕夏普评分和超声评分。引产成功的定义是患者进入了活跃产程。84%的参与妇女进入了活跃产程。72.6%的产妇经阴道正常分娩,67.8%的产妇在引产后24小时内经阴道分娩。TVS评分(MGPICSS)≥2可预测引产成功,其特异性为100%,灵敏度为39.3%,AUC为0.74。相比之下,Bishop 评分≥4 分的特异性为 75%,灵敏度为 44%,AUC 为 0.56。在 MGPICSS 评分≥2 时,预测 24 小时内分娩的特异性为 100%,灵敏度为 42.9%,AUC 为 0.76。同样,Bishop 评分≥4 分的特异性为 83.3%,灵敏度为 45.5%,AUC 为 0.71。与 Bishop 评分相比,宫颈 TVS 评估能更好地预测引产是否成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Bishop’s score with transvaginal sonographic cerviComparison of Bishop’s score with transvaginal sonographic cervical assessment to predict success of induction of labor
Induction of labor for medical or obstetric indications is a common practice in modern obstetrics. Evaluation of the cervix by Bishop’s score is universally used to predict the success of induction of labor. But it is a subjective method and many studies have shown that it is not a good indicator of success of induction. To compare Bishop’s scoring system and trans-vaginal sonographic assessment of cervix in predicting the successful outcome of induction of labor.This was an observational study conducted in a tertiary care center. 120 patients who met the selection criteria were included. Prior to the induction of labor the Bishop’s score and the sonographic scoring was assigned. Successful induction was defined as the patient entering the active phase of labor. 84% of participating women entered the active phase of labor. While 72.6% women had a normal vaginal delivery, 67.8% women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction. The TVS score (MGPICSS) of ≥2 predicted the successful induction with a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 39.3% and AUC 0.74. In comparison, the Bishop score of ≥4 had a specificity of 75% and sensitivity of 44% and AUC 0.56. The prediction of delivery within 24 hours at the MGPICSS of ≥2 had a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 42.9% and AUC 0.76. For the same, the Bishop’s score of ≥4 had specificity of 83.3% and sensitivity of 45.5% and AUC 0.71. TVS assessment of cervix is a better predictor of successful labor induction in comparison to Bishop’s score.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The sequence of acrania–exencephaly–anencephaly (AEAS)- An infrequent case report Complications of placenta previa: A retrospective observational study at tertiary care hospital A comparative study between dinoprostone pessary and dinoprostone gel for induction of labor and neonatal outcome Behind the veil of anemia: Assessment of iron, folic acid, and vitamin B12 deficiencies and their association with red cell indices in anemic and non-anemic women Management of iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy in India: A review of current practices and challenges
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1