Skip Navigation LinksHome > April 2005 - Volume 105 - Issue 4 > Bishop Score and Risk of Cesarean Delivery After Induction o...
Obstetrics & Gynecology:
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000152338.76759.38
Original Research: Lead Article

Bishop Score and Risk of Cesarean Delivery After Induction of Labor in Nulliparous Women

Vrouenraets, Francis P. J. M. MD; Roumen, Frans J. M. E. MD, PhD; Dehing, Cary J. G. BSt; van den Akker, Eline S. A. MD; Aarts, Maureen J. B. MD; Scheve, Esther J. T. MD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, the Netherlands.

Address reprint requests to: F. P. J. M. Vrouenraets, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Hospital Maastricht, Postbox 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands; e-mail: fvrouenraets@hotmail.com

Received June 9, 2004. Received in revised form October 28, 2004. Accepted November 4, 2004.

Collapse Box

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk and risk factors for cesarean delivery associated with medical and elective induction of labor in nulliparous women.

METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in nulliparous women at term with vertex singleton gestations who had labor induced at 2 obstetrical centers. Medical and elective indications and Bishop scores were recorded before labor induction. Obstetric and neonatal data were analyzed and compared with the results in women with a spontaneous onset of labor. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariable regression modeling.

RESULTS: A total of 1,389 women were included in the study. The cesarean delivery rate was 12.0% in women with a spontaneous onset of labor (n = 765), 23.4% in women undergoing labor induction for medical reasons (n = 435) (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64–3.06), and 23.8% in women whose labor was electively induced (n = 189) (unadjusted OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.53–3.41). However, after adjusting for the Bishop score at admission, no significant differences in cesarean delivery rates were found among the 3 groups. A Bishop score of 5 or less was a predominant risk factor for a cesarean delivery in all 3 groups (adjusted OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.66–3.25). Other variables with significantly increased risk for cesarean delivery included maternal age of 30 years or older, body mass index of 31 or higher, use of epidural analgesia during the first stage of labor, and birth weight of 3,500 g or higher. In both induction groups, more newborns required neonatal care, more mothers needed a blood transfusion, and the maternal hospital stay was longer.

CONCLUSION: Compared with spontaneous onset of labor, medical and elective induction of labor in nulliparous women at term with a single fetus in cephalic presentation is associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery, predominantly related to an unfavorable Bishop score at admission.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

Induction of labor is a common procedure in modern obstetrics. In the United States, the rate of labor induction increased gradually from 9.5% to 19.4% for all births between 1990 and 1998.1 Although in the Netherlands the labor induction rates remained constant (approximately 15%) between 1993 and 2002, remarkable differences have been demonstrated in the frequencies of labor induction rates in Dutch hospitals, even after adjustment for population differences.2 Reasons for these differences relate to the widespread availability of cervical ripening agents, pressure from patients, convenience for physicians, logistic factors, psychosocial reasons, and litigious constraint.3

Induction of labor is associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.4 This has been demonstrated not only for medically indicated inductions, but also for elective inductions.5–8 Nulliparous women are particularly at increased risk.9,10 It is well known that the successful induction of labor is related to cervical ripeness.11 Nevertheless, since the introduction of cervical ripening agents like prostaglandins, cervical status no longer seems to be a factor in the decision-making process regarding labor induction. Studies not including the Bishop score for cervical ripeness in the analysis report a significantly increased risk of cesarean delivery.5–7,9,10 Most studies that do include the Bishop score find an increased risk of cesarean delivery when labor is induced with a low Bishop score.4,12–14 One study including the Bishop score, however, found an increased risk of cesarean delivery with a low Bishop score and not with induction per se.15

The present prospective cohort study was performed to quantify the risk and risk factors for cesarean delivery after induction of labor for a medical or elective indication, compared with spontaneous labor onset, in nulliparous women.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All nulliparous women with a term single fetus in vertex presentation who underwent induction of labor in Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, between January 1, 2000, and October 31, 2002, or in VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, between January 1, 2001, and October 31, 2002, participated in this prospective study. Excluded were multiparous women; women with multiple gestations, fetal anomaly, or breech or transverse lie; preterm deliveries (< 370/7 weeks); planned cesarean deliveries (for elective, medical, or obstetric reasons); and women who were referred during delivery by a primary care midwife for any reason.

At the outpatient department, or at least at admission to the labor ward, the actual reason for induction was recorded. As shown in Table 1, women with a medical indication for labor induction were assigned to the medical induction group, whereas all other women who were induced without a medical indication constituted the elective induction group. Other reasons for assignment into the elective induction group included difficult external fetal monitoring (n = 3), mild pulmonary disease (n = 3), uncertain gestational age (n = 3), meconium stained amniotic fluid (n = 3), edema (n = 2), gestational diabetes (n = 2), and several indications that were mentioned only once (n = 13). Induction was performed using either prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel alone, amniotomy alone, oxytocin in combination with or without amniotomy, or prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel followed by oxytocin, or amniotomy, or a combination of both. Based on the Bishop score at admission, the attending obstetrician decided which method of induction should be performed. In case of an unfavorable cervix, induction was usually started with prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel for ripening.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

Women in whom spontaneous onset of labor was diagnosed at admission were assigned to the spontaneous onset group, which served as the control group. The criteria used to diagnose spontaneous onset of labor were regular, painful uterine contractions together with either changes in cervical status or rupture of the membranes.

Continuous electronic fetal monitoring, either internal or external, was used in all cases. The analgesics used were mostly nalbuphine and pethidine. Epidural analgesia, if given, was a continuous infusion of ropivacaine with fentanyl.

The attending obstetrician or midwife recorded antepartum, intrapartum, and neonatal data on a labor and delivery data sheet at the time of each delivery. The investigators, who also checked all data for completeness, recorded postpartum information. At the end of the study, all data were entered into a SPSS database (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 11.5. Univariate analyses included the χ2 test and analysis of variance, followed by Scheffé test for differences between groups. Known prognostic variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. A final model of risk factors for cesarean delivery was created using the maximum likelihood estimation (P < .05). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were reported for the variables that were statistically significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

During the study period, 3,532 term nulliparous women delivered in the 2 centers. Exclusion criteria were found in 2,143 of them, so a total of 1,389 women (39.3%) were qualified for inclusion into the study. Labor was induced for medical reasons in 435 women (31.3%), elective labor induction was performed in 189 women (13.6%), and 765 women (55.1%) had a spontaneous onset of labor.

Characteristics of the study population at admission are shown in Table 2, according to the 3 different groups. There were no significant differences in age, race, and number of abortions among the groups. However, compared with the medical induction group, more women in the elective induction group were younger (< 25 years) or older (≥ 35 years) (P = .037). The body mass index (BMI) was significantly higher in both induction groups than in the spontaneous onset group. The gestational age in the spontaneous onset group was significantly lower than in the 2 other groups, whereas the gestational age was usually 41 weeks in the elective induction group and 42 weeks in the medical induction group. Although the elective induction rates in the 2 centers were almost equal, patients were induced for a medical reason more often in Venlo than in Heerlen (P < .015). Compared with the women in the spontaneous onset group, the medically and electively induced women had significantly less dilatation and effacement, and significantly lower Bishop scores at admission. However, there was no difference in dilatation (P = .240), effacement (P = .536), and Bishop score (P = .146) between the medical and the elective induction groups.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

No significant differences in the methods of induction were found between the 2 induction groups (P = .111). In the medical induction group and in the elective induction group, prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel was applied in 55.7% and 53.4% of women, respectively; amniotomy alone in 5.8% and 10.6%, respectively; oxytocin with or without amniotomy in 23.8% and 22.2%, respectively; and prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel, followed by intravenous oxytocin or amniotomy, or a combination of both, in 14.7% and 13.8%, respectively.

Labor characteristics are described in Table 3. Duration of membrane rupture was significantly longer in the medical induction group than in the spontaneous onset group, which was again significantly longer than in the elective induction group. No significant differences were found in meconium-stained amniotic fluid, oxytocin stimulation during the first or second stage of labor, the use of analgesics, or the duration of the second stage. Compared with the spontaneous onset group, epidural analgesia was more frequently given to women in both induction groups, though this difference was not significant (P = .240) between both induction groups.

Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools

The percentage of instrumental vaginal deliveries was almost equal among the 3 groups. Compared with the spontaneous onset group, however, the number of cesarean deliveries was almost doubled in both the medical and the elective induction group. The most common indication for cesarean delivery was failure to progress (58.0%), followed by fetal distress (26.3%), or a combination of both (15.7%). No significant differences in cesarean delivery indication among the 3 groups could be demonstrated (P = .237). In all 3 groups, most cesarean deliveries were performed during the first stage of labor (84.9%) (P = .297).

Compared with the spontaneous onset group, more children with a birth weight less than 2,500 g and 4,000 g or higher were born in both the medical and the elective induction groups. The birth weight of the babies between both induction groups was not different (P = .720). No significant differences among the 3 groups were found in neonatal sex, 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores, or umbilical artery pH. However, newborns in the medical and elective induction groups required more frequent oxygen insufflation (16.8% and 12.2%, respectively), were more often referred to a pediatrician (87.6% and 71.4%, respectively), and were more often admitted to the neonatal department (24% and 25.9%, respectively) than children in the spontaneous onset group (9%, 62.7% and 14.8%, respectively). Compared with the elective induction group, more children in the medical induction group were referred to a pediatrician (P < .001).

Blood transfusion was necessary in 41 women (9.4%) in the medical induction group, which was not significantly different from 20 women (10.6%) in the elective induction group (P = .655). In the spontaneous onset group, however, only 44 women (5.8%) needed a blood transfusion, which was significantly less frequent (P = .016). Mean (± SD) maternal hospital stay in the spontaneous onset group was 2.7 ± 2.0 days, which was significantly (P < .001) shorter than the mean hospital stay in both the medical induction group (3.7 ± 1.9 days) and the elective induction group (3.5 ± 2.1 days). The maternal hospital stay between both induction groups was not different (P = .203).

Compared with the spontaneous onset group, the unadjusted OR for a cesarean delivery was 2.24 in the medical induction group (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.64–3.06), and 2.29 in the elective induction group (95% CI 1.53–3.41). In a multivariable logistic regression model without the Bishop score at admission, medical and elective induction of labor continued to be associated with adjusted ORs of 1.96 (95% CI 1.33–2.90) and 1.98 (95% CI 1.25–3.14), respectively. Looking at the Bishop score at admission, however, a significant correlation with the cesarean delivery rate could be demonstrated in all 3 groups. The subgroup of all patients whose Bishop score was less than or equal to 5 had a higher rate of cesarean delivery (25.0%) than the 6–8 subgroup (13.6%) and the 9 or higher subgroup (6.2%) (P < .001). In the multivariable logistic regression model (as shown in Table 4), with the Bishop score at admission included as an extra covariable, the difference in the cesarean delivery rate among the 3 groups was no longer significant. The adjusted OR was 1.35 for the medical induction group (95% CI 0.87–2.11) and 1.23 for the elective induction group (95% CI 0.75–2.02). Other independent risk factors for a cesarean delivery were maternal age, BMI, gestational age, epidural analgesia, birth weight, and hospital of delivery. Finally, the Bishop score at admission was removed from the multivariable model and dilatation and degree of effacement were added in its place. Only dilatation, and not the degree of effacement, was a statistically significant predictor of cesarean delivery rate. Compared with dilatation of 5 cm or more, the adjusted ORs for a cesarean delivery were 2.68 (95% CI 1.34–5.38) for 3–4 cm, 4.46 (95% CI 2.34–8.52) for 1–2 cm, and 6.81 (95% CI 3.42–13.45) for 0 cm.

Table 4
Table 4
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to investigate whether induction of labor in nulliparous women with a term single fetus in cephalic presentation predisposes to a higher risk of cesarean delivery than does spontaneous onset of labor. As medical indications could have an additional risk for instrumental delivery, all women with accurately defined medical indications were assigned to the medical induction group before the start of induction. The elective induction group consisted of women without a specific medical indication. Women with a spontaneous onset of labor at admission formed the control group.

Although the percentage of instrumental vaginal deliveries in the 3 groups was almost equal, the cesarean delivery rate in women whose labor was induced was almost twice as high as in women with a spontaneous onset (23.6% versus 12.0%). This is in agreement with many other studies.4,5,7–10,14 Indeed, a 3-fold risk6 and even an 8-fold risk16 of cesarean delivery has been reported. The double cesarean delivery rate was found in both the medical (23.4%) and the elective (23.8%) induction groups. Therefore, women who undergo an elective induction of labor have essentially the same risk of cesarean delivery as women who have a medical indication for induction. The same finding was reported by Seyb et al,9 who found a 7.8% cesarean delivery rate in women experiencing spontaneous labor, whereas women undergoing elective labor induction had a 17.5% cesarean delivery rate (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.12–3.18) and women undergoing medically indicated labor induction had a 17.7% cesarean delivery rate (adjusted OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.13–2.54).

In all 3 groups, the cesarean delivery rate was significantly related to the Bishop score at admission; dilatation was the most important item, and failure to progress during the first stage was the most common indication for cesarean delivery. After including the Bishop score as an extra covariable in the multivariable logistic regression model, no significant differences in cesarean delivery rate among the 3 groups could be demonstrated. Therefore, a Bishop score at admission of 5 or lower, and not the induction per se, is associated with a more than double risk in cesarean delivery rate, regardless of whether the labor is induced for a medical or an elective reason. This is in agreement with the study of Prysak and Castronova,15 but in contrast with many other studies that reported both labor induction and cervical ripeness as being of significance.4,12–14 The Bishop score in our study was assigned only by digital examination, but its accuracy in predicting the successful induction of labor in nulliparous patients has been demonstrated again very recently.17 A possible limitation of this study was the absence of a prospectively determined method of induction in case of a certain Bishop score. In case of an unfavorable cervix, however, induction was usually started with prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel for ripening.

No significant differences in maternal age, race, and abortion rate were found among the 3 groups. Maternal age was a significant independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. The higher the maternal age, the higher the risk for cesarean delivery, as found by many other investigators.6,14,18,19 Compared with the spontaneous onset group, women in both induction groups had a higher BMI. Body mass index was also an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Increased BMI was associated with an increase in the cesarean delivery rate, as demonstrated by others.9,20,21 Because impending postterm pregnancy with its accompanying psychosocial problems was an indication for elective induction, and because postterm pregnancy was an indication for medical induction, it could have been expected that the lowest gestational age was found in the spontaneous onset group and the highest gestational age in the medical induction group. A gestational age of less then 39 weeks was associated with a decreased risk of cesarean delivery, as mentioned by others.15 Meconium-stained amniotic fluid, oxytocin stimulation during the first and second stages, and duration of the second stage were similar in the 3 groups. Because prolonged rupture of the membranes was an indication for medical induction, the duration of ruptured membranes was longest in the medical induction group. Moreover, as spontaneous onset of labor often starts with membrane rupture, duration of membrane rupture was longer in the spontaneous onset group than in the elective induction group. None of these factors had an independent relation to the cesarean delivery rate.

Compared with the spontaneous onset group, epidural analgesia was more frequently given to women in both induction groups. It remains unknown whether epidural analgesia was merely given for increased pain during induction or also on request by the laboring women. Epidural analgesia was also an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. The earlier epidural analgesia was given during labor, the higher the probability of a cesarean delivery later on, confirming the results of other studies.9,10,22 As could be expected, more children with a birth weight below 2,500 g or 4,000 g or higher were born in the induction groups than in the spontaneous onset group. Birth weight was also an independent risk factor for cesarean delivery. Birth weight of 3,500 g or higher was associated with an increased cesarean delivery rate, again as mentioned by others.6,9,14,15 The higher cesarean delivery rate at the obstetric unit in Venlo seems to be related to the significantly higher percentage of medical inductions in this center compared with the obstetric unit in Heerlen.

The neonatal condition at birth was equal in the 3 groups. As expected, more children in the medical induction group were referred to the pediatrician after delivery. Probably because of the increased cesarean delivery rate, more newborns in both induction groups needed oxygen administration and were more often admitted to the neonatal ward. Several authors reported increased need for neonatal resuscitation, admission to neonatal intensive care, and use of phototherapy.8,10 Compared with the spontaneous onset group, more women in both induction groups needed a blood transfusion, and their hospital stay was 1 day longer.

In summary, the present study emphasizes that both medical and elective induction of labor in nulliparous women at term with a single fetus in cephalic presentation is associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery, predominantly related to an unfavorable Bishop score. Whereas induction for medical indications is often inevitable, induction for elective reasons should be discouraged in the case of an unripe Bishop score. This is especially true for older women (≥ 30 years), those with a high BMI (≥ 31), and those with an estimated birth weight of 3,500 g or higher. The combination of several risk factors leads to a considerably increased risk of cesarean delivery, which is associated with increased need for blood transfusion and more frequent neonatal care. In addition, the hospital stay is longer.

Awareness of these results by nulliparous women and their obstetricians should convince them not to start an elective induction in case of an unfavorable Bishop score and to wait patiently for a spontaneous onset. This is also of utmost importance to reduce the ongoing rise of cesarean delivery rates.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Zhang J, Yancey MK, Henderson CE. National trends in labor induction, 1989–1998. J Reprod Med 2002;47:120–4.

2. Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, le Cessie S, Van Hemel OJ. Large differences in obstetrical intervention rates among Dutch hospitals, even after adjustment for population differences. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;68:97–103.

3. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:164–7.

4. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628–33.

5. Smith LP, Nagourney BA, McLean FH, Usher RH. Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:579–85.

6. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:917–22.

7. Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:986–94.

8. Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated pregnancies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001;15:131–9.

9. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:600–7.

10. Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240–4.

11. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266–8.

12. Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1690–6.

13. Wigton TR, Wolk BM. Elective and routine induction of labor: a retrospective analysis of 274 cases. J Reprod Med 1994;39:21–6.

14. Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1565–72.

15. Prysak M, Castronova FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:47–52.

16. van Gemund N, Hardeman A, Scherjon SA, Kanhai HHH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset: a matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003;56:133–8.

17. Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Severi FM, Petraglia F. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1361–7.

18. Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:287–93.

19. Ecker JL, Chen KT, Cohen AP, Riley LE, Lieberman ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:883–7.

20. Crane SS, Wojtowycz MA, Dye TD, Aubry RH, Artal R. Association between prepregnancy obesity and the risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:213–6.

21. Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ, Owen J. The association of maternal weight with cesarean risk, labor duration, and cervical dilation rate during labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:452–6.

22. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Cohen A, D'Agnostino R, Sanjay D, Frigoletto FD. Association of epidural analgesia and cesarean section for dystocia: risk factors in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:993–1000.

Figure. No caption available.


Cited By:

This article has been cited 59 time(s).

Molecular Human Reproduction
Anti-inflammatory and relaxatory effects of prostaglandin E-2 in myometrial smooth muscle
Slater, DM; Astle, S; Woodcock, N; Chivers, JE; de Wit, NCJ; Thornton, S; Vatish, M; Newton, R
Molecular Human Reproduction, 12(2): 89-97.
10.1093/molehr/gal005
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
The impact of duration of labor induction on cesarean rate
Michelson, KA; Carr, DB; Easterling, TR
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 199(3): -.
ARTN 299.e1
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor
Cheng, YW; Delaney, SS; Hopkins, LM; Caughey, AB
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 201(5): -.
ARTN 477.e1
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Trends in obstetric interventions in the Dutch obstetrical care system in the period 1993-2002
Kwee, A; Elferink-Stinkens, PM; Reuwer, PJHM; Bruinse, HW
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 132(1): 70-75.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.06.018
CrossRef
American Family Physician
Dystocia in nulliparous women
Shields, SG; Ratcliffe, SD; Fontaine, P; Leeman, L
American Family Physician, 75(): 1671-1678.

European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Factors associated with the length of the latent phase during labor induction
Grobman, WA; Simon, C
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 132(2): 163-166.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.09.002
CrossRef
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement in predicting failed labor induction and cesarean delivery for failure to progress in nulliparous women
Park, KH
Journal of Korean Medical Science, 22(4): 722-727.

Singapore Medical Journal
Predictors of newborn admission after labour induction at term: Bishop score, pre-induction ultrasonography and clinical risk factors
Tan, PC; Sugunat, S; Vallikkannu, N; Hassan, J
Singapore Medical Journal, 49(3): 193-198.

Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Operative Deliveries in Low-Risk Pregnancies in The Netherlands: Primary versus Secondary Care
Maassen, MS; Hendrix, MJC; Van Vugt, HC; Veersema, S; Smits, F; Nijhuis, JG
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care, 35(4): 277-282.
10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00254.x
CrossRef
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor
Peregrine, E; O'Brien, P; Omar, R; Jauniaux, E
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(2): 227-233.

Obstetrics and Gynecology
Induction of labor using a Foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion
Karjane, NW; Brock, EL; Walsh, SW
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(2): 234-239.

American Journal of Perinatology
Duration of labor induction in nulliparous women at term: How long is long enough?
Blackwell, SC; Refuerzo, J; Chadha, R; Samson, J
American Journal of Perinatology, 25(4): 205-209.
10.1055/s-2008-1064933
CrossRef
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Prepartum and intrapartum caesarean section rates at Mater Mothers' Hospital Brisbane 1997-2005
Janssens, S; Wallace, KL; Chang, AMZ
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 48(6): 564-569.
10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00920.x
CrossRef
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery
Le Ray, C; Carayol, M; Breart, G; Goffinet, F
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 86(6): 657-665.
10.1080/00016340701245427
CrossRef
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing
The emergence of high-tech birthing
Zwelling, E
Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 37(1): 85-93.
10.1111/J.1552-6909.2007.00211.x
CrossRef
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in the supine and upright positions versus Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor at term
Meijer-Hoogeveen, M; Roos, C; Arabin, B; Stoutenbeek, P; Visser, GHA
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 33(2): 213-220.
10.1002/uog.6219
CrossRef
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Factors Predicting Successful Labor Induction With Dinoprostone and Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts
Pevzner, L; Rayburn, WF; Rumney, P; Wing, DA
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(2): 261-267.

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor
Brennan, DJ; Robson, MS; Murphy, M; O'Herlihy, C
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 201(3): -.
ARTN 308.e1
CrossRef
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Indications and results of labour induction in nulliparous women: An interview among obstetricians, residents and clinical midwives
Vellekoop, J; Vrouenraets, FPJM; van der Steeg, JW; Mol, BWJ; Roumen, FJME
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 146(2): 156-159.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.005
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement
Main, EK; Moore, D; Farrell, B; Schimmel, LD; Altman, RJ; Abrahams, C; Bliss, MC; Polivy, L; Sterling, J
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 194(6): 1644-1651.
10.1016/j.ajog.2006.03.013
CrossRef
Journal of Midwifery & Womens Health
The latent phase of labor: Diagnosis and management
Greulich, B; Tarrant, B
Journal of Midwifery & Womens Health, 52(3): 190-198.
10.1016/j.jmwh.2006.12.007
CrossRef
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Validation of models that predict Cesarean section after induction of labor
Verhoeven, CJM; Oudenaarden, A; Hermus, MAA; Porath, MM; Oei, SG; Mol, BWJ
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 34(3): 316-321.
10.1002/uog.7315
CrossRef
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Concurrent oxytocin with dinoprostone pessary versus dinoprostone pessary in labour induction of nulliparas with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised placebo-controlled trial
Tan, PC; Valiapan, SD; Tay, PYS; Omar, SZ
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 114(7): 824-832.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01384.x
CrossRef
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Minimizing the risks from elective induction of labor
Rayburn, WE
Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 52(8): 671-676.

Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America
Guerra, GV; Cecatti, JG; Souza, JP; Faundes, A; Morais, SS; Gulmezoglu, AM; Parpinelli, MA; Passini, R; Carroli, G
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116(): 1762-1772.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02348.x
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis
Hatfield, AS; Sanchez-Ramos, L; Kaunitz, AM
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 197(2): 186-192.
10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.050
CrossRef
Annals of Internal Medicine
Systematic Review: Elective Induction of Labor Versus Expectant Management of Pregnancy
Caughey, AB; Sundaram, V; Kaimal, AJ; Gienger, A; Cheng, YW; McDonald, KM; Shaffer, BL; Owens, DK; Bravata, DM
Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4): 252-W63.

Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Discontinuation of oxytocin in the active phase of labor
Girard, B; Vardon, D; Creveuil, C; Herlicoviez, M; Dreyfus, M
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 88(2): 172-177.
10.1080/00016340802649816
CrossRef
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Risk Factors for Cesarean Delivery in Preterm, Term and Post-Term Patients Undergoing Induction of Labor with an Unfavorable Cervix
Ennen, CS; Bofill, JA; Magann, EF; Bass, JD; Chauhan, SP; Morrison, JC
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 67(2): 113-117.
10.1159/000166307
CrossRef
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Body mass index, Bishop score, and sonographic measurement of the cervical length as predictors of successful labor induction in twin gestations
Park, KH; Hong, JS; Kang, WS; Shin, DM; Kim, SN
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 37(5): 519-523.
10.1515/JPM.2009.099
CrossRef
Advances in Therapy
Ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting mode of delivery after oxytocin induction
Yanik, A; Gulumser, C; Tosun, M
Advances in Therapy, 24(4): 748-756.

Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Management of postterm pregnancies
Beucher, G; Dreyfus, M
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(2): 107-117.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.09.005
CrossRef
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE(2) gel
Pennell, CE; Henderson, JJ; O'Neill, MJ; McCleery, S; Doherty, DA; Dickinson, JE
Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116(): 1443-1452.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02279.x
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean delivery rates: institutional and individual level predictors
Coonrod, DV; Drachman, D; Hobson, P; Manriquez, M
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(6): -.
ARTN 694.e1
CrossRef
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Prediction of risk for cesarean delivery in term nulliparas: a comparison of neural network and multiple logistic regression models
Al Housseini, A; Newman, T; Cox, A; Devoe, LD
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 201(1): -.
ARTN 113.e1
CrossRef
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Immediate neonatal outcomes after elective induction of labor
Beebe, L; Beaty, C; Rayburn, W
Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 52(3): 173-175.

European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Intrauterine growth restriction at term: Induction or spontaneous labour? Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT): A pilot study
van den Hove, MML; Willekes, C; Roumen, FJME; Scherjon, SA
European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 125(1): 54-58.
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.06.018
CrossRef
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America
Prenatal counseling regarding cesarean delivery
Leeman, LM
Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 35(3): 473-+.
10.1016/j.ogc.2008.07.003
CrossRef
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction
Prediction of successful induction of labour: A comparison between fetal fibronectin assay and the Bishop score
Droulez, A; Girard, R; Dumas, AM; Mathian, B; Berland, M
Journal De Gynecologie Obstetrique Et Biologie De La Reproduction, 37(7): 691-696.
10.1016/j.jgyn.2008.05.009
CrossRef
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Single indications of induction of labor with prostaglandins and risk of cesarean delivery: A retrospective cohort study
Gerli, S; Favilli, A; Giordano, C; Bini, V; Di Renzo, GC
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39(5): 926-931.
10.1111/jog.12000
CrossRef
Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association
VBAC Scoring: Successful vaginal delivery in previous one caesarean section in induced labour
Raja, JF; Bangash, KT; Mahmud, G
Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 63(9): 1147-1151.

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Value of Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of cesarean delivery
Cubal, A; Carvalho, J; Ferreira, MJ; Rodrigues, G; Do Carmo, O
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39(9): 1391-1396.
10.1111/jog.12077
CrossRef
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Cesarean delivery in obese women: a comprehensive review
Wispelwey, BP; Sheiner, E
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 26(6): 547-551.
10.3109/14767058.2012.745506
CrossRef
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Single indication of labor induction with prostaglandins: is advanced maternal age a risk factor for cesarean section? A matched retrospective cohort study
Favilli, A; Acanfora, MM; Bini, V; Radicchi, R; Di Renzo, GC; Gerli, S
Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 26(7): 665-668.
10.3109/14767058.2012.746658
CrossRef
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Oxytocin versus sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score >= 4 and >= 6: A randomized controlled trial
Koc, O; Duran, B; Ozdemirci, S; Albayrak, M; Koc, U
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39(4): 790-798.
10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.02045.x
CrossRef
Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth
Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial
ten Eikelder, MLG; Neervoort, F; Rengerink, KO; Jozwiak, M; de Leeuw, JW; de Graaf, I; van Pampus, MG; Franssen, M; Oudijk, M; van der Salm, P; Woiski, M; Pernet, PJM; Feitsma, AH; van Vliet, H; Porath, M; Roumen, F; van Beek, E; Versendaal, H; Heres, M; Mol, BWJ; Bloemenkamp, KWM
Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13(): -.
ARTN 67
CrossRef
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Delivery outcomes in women undergoing elective labor induction at term
Tam, T; Conte, M; Schuler, H; Malang, S; Roque, M
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 287(3): 407-411.
10.1007/s00404-012-2582-1
CrossRef
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Does Enhanced "Bundling" Criteria Improve Outcomes? A Comparative Study of Elective Inductions
Kenny, TH; Nicodemo, JM; Fenton, BW; von Gruenigen, VE
Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 58(): 402-410.

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Elective Induction: When? Ever?
GROBMAN, WA
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 50(2): 537-546.
10.1097/GRF.0b013e31804bdec4
PDF (104) | CrossRef
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Factors Predicting Labor Induction Success: A Critical Analysis
CRANE, JM
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(3): 573-584.

PDF (164)
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology
Elective Induction of Labor
MOORE, LE; RAYBURN, WF
Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 49(3): 698-704.

PDF (89)
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Membrane Sweeping at Initiation of Formal Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Tan, PC; Jacob, R; Omar, SZ
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 107(3): 569-577.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000200094.89388.70
PDF (305) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Induction of Labor in the Nulliparous Gravida With an Unfavorable Cervix
Mercer, BM
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105(4): 688-689.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000158880.01643.eb
PDF (114) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Labor Induction Process Improvement: A Patient Quality-of-Care Initiative
Fisch, JM; English, D; Pedaline, S; Brooks, K; Simhan, HN
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 113(4): 797-803.
10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819c9e3d
PDF (493) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Factors Associated With Cesarean Delivery in Nulliparous Women With Type 1 Diabetes
Lepercq, J; Le Meaux, J; Agman, A; Timsit, J
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 115(5): 1014-1020.
10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d992ab
PDF (213) | CrossRef
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Maternal Morbidity Associated With Cesarean Delivery Without Labor Compared With Induction of Labor at Term
Allen, VM; O’Connell, CM; Baskett, TF
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 108(2): 286-294.
10.1097/01.AOG.0000215988.23224.e4
PDF (263) | CrossRef
The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing
Reconsideration of the Costs of Convenience: Quality, Operational, and Fiscal Strategies to Minimize Elective Labor Induction

The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24(1): 53-54.
10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181d81e4b
PDF (57) | CrossRef
Medical Care
Induction of Labor in the Absence of Standard Medical Indications: Incidence and Correlates
Lydon-Rochelle, MT; Cárdenas, V; Nelson, JC; Holt, VL; Gardella, C; Easterling, TR
Medical Care, 45(6): 505-512.
10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180330e26
PDF (291) | CrossRef
MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing
Standardizing Criteria for Scheduling Elective Labor Inductions
Durham, L; Veltman, L; Davis, P; Ferguson, L; Hacker, M; Hooker, D; Larison, K; Pribyl, J; Twilleager, K; Van Hout, G
MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 33(3): 159-165.
10.1097/01.NMC.0000318351.16106.b3
PDF (855) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2005 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share