Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

[1] ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386–97.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1511–5.10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.001Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[3] Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–8.Suche in Google Scholar

[4] Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A. Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;27:309–11.10.1111/j.1479-828X.1987.tb01015.xSuche in Google Scholar

[5] Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:805–11.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182114ad2Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[6] Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:739–53.10.1007/s00404-012-2341-3Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:186–92.10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.050Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Feltovich H, Hall TJ, Berghella V. Beyond cervical length: emerging technologies for assessing the pregnant cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:345–54.10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.015Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] McFarlin BL, Bigelow TA, Laybed Y, O’Brien WD, Oelze ML, Abramowicz JS. Ultrasonic attenuation estimation of the pregnant cervix: a preliminary report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:218–25.10.1002/uog.7643Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Stein W, Hellmeyer L, Schmidt S, Tekesin I. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of transvaginal cervical length measurements and quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix in the second and third trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(Suppl 2):E169–74.10.1055/s-0031-1273409Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Thomas A. Imaging of the cervix using sonoelastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:356–7.10.1002/uog.3813Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Hernandez-Andrade E, Hassan SS, Ahn H, Korzeniewski SJ, Yeo L, Chaiworapongsa T, et al. Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:152–61.10.1002/uog.12344Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[13] Hernandez-Andrade E, Romero R, Korzeniewski SJ, Ahn H, Aurioles-Garibay A, Garcia M, et al. Cervical strain determined by ultrasound elastography and its association with spontaneous preterm delivery. J Perinat Med. 2014;42:159–69.10.1515/jpm-2013-0277Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[14] Kobbing K, Fruscalzo A, Hammer K, Mollers M, Falkenberg M, Kwiecien R, et al. Quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix as a predictor of preterm delivery. J Perinatol. 2014;34: 774–80.10.1038/jp.2014.87Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Wozniak S, Czuczwar P, Szkodziak P, Milart P, Wozniakowska E, Paszkowski T. Elastography in predicting preterm delivery in asymptomatic, low-risk women: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:238.10.1186/1471-2393-14-238Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] Sabiani L, Haumonte JB, Loundou A, Caro AS, Brunet J, Cocallemen JF, et al. Cervical HI-RTE elastography and pregnancy outcome: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186C:80–4.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.01.016Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Feltovich H, Hall TJ. Quantitative imaging of the cervix: setting the bar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:121–8.10.1002/uog.12383Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:52–6.10.1002/uog.9021Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Frohlich C, Meyer-Wittkopf M, Schmitz R. Quantitative elastography of the cervix for predicting labor induction success. Ultraschall Med. 2015;36:65–73.Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Hee L, Rasmussen CK, Schlutter JM, Sandager P, Uldbjerg N. Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix prior to induction of labor as a predictor of cervical dilation time. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93:684–90.10.1111/aogs.12389Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:937–46.10.7863/ultra.32.6.937Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Muscatello A, Di Nicola M, Accurti V, Mastrocola N, Franchi V, Colagrande I, et al. Sonoelastography as method for preliminary evaluation of uterine cervix to predict success of induction of labor. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;35:57–61.10.1159/000355084Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Pereira S, Frick AP, Poon LC, Zamprakou A, Nicolaides KH. Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44:468–75.10.1002/uog.13411Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Sonnier L, Bouhanna P, Arnou C, Rozenberg P. Elastography of cervix to predict delay from induction to delivery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42:827–31.10.1016/j.gyobfe.2014.10.005Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R, Klockenbusch W, Steinhard J. Reliability of cervix elastography in late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33:1–7.10.1055/s-0031-1299330Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Fruscalzo A, Steinhard J, Londero AP, Fröhlich C, Bijnens B, Klockenbusch W, et al. Reliability of quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix in at-term pregnancies. J Perinat Med. 2013;41:421–7.10.1515/jpm-2012-0180Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Frohlich C, Mollmann U, Schmitz R. Quantitative elastography for cervical stiffness assessment during pregnancy. Biomed Res Int. 2014:826535. doi: 10.1155/2014/826535.10.1155/2014/826535Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[28] Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ. Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. p. 1–27.Suche in Google Scholar

[29] Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9.10.1186/1471-2288-6-9Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[30] Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327:557–60.10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[31] Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J. 1997;315:629–34.10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[32] Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.10.2307/2533446Suche in Google Scholar

[33] Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283:2008–12.10.1001/jama.283.15.2008Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097Suche in Google Scholar

[35] Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 2011;343:d4002.10.1136/bmj.d4002Suche in Google Scholar

[36] Lange AP, Secher NJ, Westergaard JG, Skovgard I. Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstet Gynecol. 1982;60:137–47.Suche in Google Scholar

[37] Hoesli IM, Strutas D, Tercanli S, Holzgreve W. Charts for cervical length in singleton pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82:161–5.10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00443-5Suche in Google Scholar

[38] Londero AP, Bertozzi S, Fruscalzo A, Driul L, Marchesoni D. Ultrasonographic assessment of cervix size and its correlation with female characteristics, pregnancy, BMI, and other anthropometric features. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:545–50.10.1007/s00404-010-1377-5Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Reply. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:712–4.10.1002/uog.12475Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:612.10.1002/uog.12320Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Schmitz R. Quantitative cervical elastography during pregnancy: influence of setting features on strain calculation. J Med Ultrason. 2015; DOI 10.1007/ s10396-015-0619-3.10.1007/s10396-015-0619-3Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[42] Hee L, Sandager P, Petersen O, Uldbjerg N. Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix by interposition of a synthetic reference material. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92: 1244–9.10.1111/aogs.12246Suche in Google Scholar PubMed