The Bishop Score as a Predictor of Labor Induction Success: A Systematic Review

Diny G. E. Kolkman; Corine J. M. Verhoeven; Sophie J. Brinkhorst; Joris A. M. van der Post; Eva Pajkrt; Brent C. Opmeer; Ben Willem J. Mol

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1331024

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2013; 30(08): 625-630
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1331024

Review Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Bishop Score as a Predictor of Labor Induction Success: A Systematic Review

Authors

Diny G. E. Kolkman

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corine J. M. Verhoeven

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
Sophie J. Brinkhorst

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Joris A. M. van der Post

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Eva Pajkrt

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Brent C. Opmeer

³Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ben Willem J. Mol

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective To assess the ability of the Bishop score to predict the mode of delivery in women scheduled for induction of labor at term.

Study Design We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases from inception to July 2009. Studies reporting on both the Bishop score and the outcome of labor in women scheduled for induction of labor at term were eligible. We used a bivariate model to estimate a summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve for the outcome cesarean delivery.

Results We included 40 primary articles reporting on 13,757 women. Study quality was mediocre. The sROC curve of the Bishop score in the prediction of cesarean delivery indicated a poor predictive capacity. For the prediction of cesarean delivery, the sensitivity-specificity combinations were 47%-75%, 61%-53% and 78%-44% for the Bishop scores of 4, 5, and 6, respectively. For a Bishop score below 9, the sensitivity-specificity combination was 95%-30%.

Conclusion The Bishop score is a poor predictor for the outcome of induced labor at term and should not be used to decide whether to induce labor or not.

Keywords

Bishop score - induction of labor - outcome of labor - prediction

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2006. Available at: http://www.perinatreg.nl/home . Accessed February 1, 2009
2 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003; 52: 1-113
3 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline. Induction of Labour—Clinical Guideline (NICE, NHS); July 2008. Available at http://publications.nice.org.uk/induction-of-labour-cg70 . Accessed December 10, 2012
4 Queenan JT, Hobbins JC, Spong CY. Protocols for High Risk Pregnancies. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Wiles-Blackwell; 2010
5 Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268
6 Burnett Jr JE. Preinduction scoring: an objective approach to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1966; 28 (4) 479-483
7 Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 982-990
8 Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 1974; 19: 716-723
9 Alberico S, Fadalti M, Grimaldi E, De Seta F, Mazza S, Guaschino S. Eligibility criteria for labor induction with prostaglandins. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1997; 24: 61-66
10 Berhan Y, Dwivedi AD. Currently used oxytocin regimen outcome measures at term & postterm. II: Outcome indicators in relation to Bishop Score & other covariates. Ethiop Med J 2007; 45: 243-250
11 Bique C, Bugalho A, Bergström S. Labor induction by vaginal misoprostol in grand multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 198-201
12 Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Pateisky N , et al. Influence of labor induction on obstetric outcomes in patients with prolonged pregnancy: a comparison between elective labor induction and spontaneous onset of labor beyond term. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2005; 117: 287-292
13 Bredow V, Straube W. [Fetal outcome after cervical ripeness-adjusted labor induction with prostaglandin E2 in relation to cervix status. Results of a multicenter study]. Zentralbl Gynakol 1993; 115: 530-536
14 Burnelli L, Santarelli F, Ribiani E, Cruciani L, Affronti G, Di Renzo GC. Induction of Labor: Comparison of Effectiveness between Two Formulations of Prostaglandins. Giorn It Ost Gin 2006; 28: 378-386
15 Calder AA, Embrey MP, Hillier K. Extra-amniotic prostaglandin E2 for the induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1974; 81: 39-46
16 Chan LY, Fu L, Leung TN, Wong SF, Lau TK. Obstetric outcomes after cervical ripening by multiple doses of vaginal prostaglandin E2. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 70-74
17 Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaklis A. Sonographic cervical length measurement before labor induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006; 21: 34-38
18 Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A. Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 309-311
19 Di Giorgio R, Ruggiero M, Poti M , et al. Labor Induction: Sublingual Oxytocin, Intravenous Oxytocin, Prostaglandin Vaginal Gel. Giorn It Ost Gin 1994; 2: 104-108
20 Di Lieto A, Martinelli P, Di Meglio A, Chalkitis G. [Labor induction with automatic intravenous perfusion of PGF2-alpha]. Minerva Ginecol 1980; 32: 1043-1048
21 Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 199-204
22 Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 254-257
23 Herman A, Groutzd A, Bukovsky I, Arieli S, Sherman D, Caspi E. A simplified preinduction scoring method for the prediction of successful vaginal delivery based on multivariate analysis of pelvic and other obstetrical factors. J Perinat Med 1993; 21: 117-124
24 Houghton DJ. An evaluation of the Bishop scoring system in relation to a method of induction of labour by intra-vaginal prostaglandin. Postgrad Med J 1982; 58: 403-407
25 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: 1565-1569 , discussion 1569–1572
26 Keirse MJ, de Koning Gans HJ. Randomized comparison of the effects of endocervical and vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel in women with various degrees of cervical ripeness. Dutch Collaborative Prostaglandin Trialists' Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 1859-1864
27 Kuvacić I, Skrablin S, Drazancić A, Fudurić I, Hodzić D. [Peroral and intracervical administration of prostaglandin E2 for stimulation of term labor in premature rupture of fetal membranes]. Jugosl Ginekol Perinatol 1990; 30: 143-147
28 Lauersen NH, Wilson KH. Induction of labor with oral prostaglandin E2. Obstet Gynecol 1974; 44: 793-801
29 Le Ray C, Carayol M, Bréart G, Goffinet F. PREMODA Study Group. Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 657-665
30 Liu HS, Chu TY, Chang YK, Yu MH, Chen WH. Intracervical misoprostol as an effective method of labor induction at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 64: 49-53
31 Lopes P, Blot PH, Breart G, Sureau C. Induction of labor by prostaglandin F2 alpha, clinical and tocographic study. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet 1981; 76: 591-604
32 Lykkesfeldt G, Osler M. A comparison of three methods for inducing labor: oral prostaglandin E2, buccal desaminooxytocin, intravenous oxytocin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1979; 58: 321-325
33 Lyndrup J, Weber T, Legarth J, Nickelsen C, Guldbaek E. Prediction of mode of delivery and “DisFIL score” following induction of labor by local PGE2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 52: 11-19
34 Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166 (6 Pt 1) 1690-1696 , discussion 1696–1697
35 Marconi AM, Bozzetti P, Morabito A, Pardi G. Comparing two dinoprostone agents for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 138: 135-140
36 Miller JF, Welply GA, Elstein M. Prostaglandin E2 tablets compared with intravenous oxytocin in induction of labour. BMJ 1975; 1: 14-16
37 Møller M, Thomsen AC, Sørensen J, Forman A. Oxytocin- or low-dose prostaglandin F2 alpha-infusion for stimulation of labor after primary rupture of membranes. A prospective, randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987; 66: 103-106
38 Novakov A, Segedi D, Milasinović L, Vejnović T, Curcić A. Induction of labor by endocervical application of prostaglandins and intravenous infusion of oxytocin in postterm pregnancy. Med Pregl 1998; 51: 419-426
39 Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of the need for cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 45-48
40 Rayamajhi RT, Karki C, Shrestha N, Padhye SM. Indication for labour induction and predictors for failed induction at KMCTH. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2009; 7: 21-25
41 Romanelli M, Ribiani E, Burnelli L, Luzi G, Affronti G, Di Renzo GC. [Pharmacological induction of labour: benefits and risks]. Minerva Ginecol 2007; 59: 347-355
42 Spalletta G, Marrelli A, Valention G , et al. Labor Induction by Means of Dinoprostone Gel: Clinical Contribution. Giorn It Ost Gin 1995; 3: 201-204
43 Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 568-573
44 Toth T, Selovic A. Outcome and duration of induced deliveries in General hospital Bjelovar. Gynaecol Perinatol 2003; 12: 26-32
45 Varma TR, Norman J, Cowell L. Induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2 pessaries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1983; 21: 55-64
46 Wein P. Efficacy of different starting doses of oxytocin for induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 863-868
47 Willcourt RJ, Pager D, Wendel J, Hale RW. Induction of labor with pulsatile oxytocin by a computer-controlled pump. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 603-608
48 Yanik A, Gülümser C, Tosun M. Ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting mode of delivery after oxytocin induction. Adv Ther 2007; 24: 748-756
49 Leeflang M, Reitsma J, Scholten R , et al. Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 164-172
50 Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S , et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999; 282: 1061-1066
51 Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006; 174: 469-476
52 Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (4) CD004945
53 Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Gant NF , et al. Williams Manual of Obstetrics. 21st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2003
54 Treffers PE, Prins M. Praktische verloskunde. 10th ed. Houten, Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2009