Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Rodney Paiva Vasconcelos"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Artigos Originais

    Cervical ultrasonography versus Bishop score as a predictor of vaginal delivery

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2011;33(11):361-366

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Cervical ultrasonography versus Bishop score as a predictor of vaginal delivery

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2011;33(11):361-366

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011001100007

    Views1

    PURPOSE: to compare the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of the uterine cervix with Bishop’s score for the prediction of vaginal delivery after labor induction, with 25 mcg of misoprostol. METHODS: a prospective study for the validation of a diagnostic test was conducted on 126 pregnant women with indication for labor induction. The patients were evaluated by Bishop’s score and transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical measurement. They also undergone obstetric transabdominal ultrasound to evaluate static and fetal weight, as well as the amniotic fluid index, and basal cardiotocography for the evaluation of fetal vitality. Labor was induced with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol, one of the tablets containing 25 mcg of the drug and the other only placebo. The tablets were administered every six hours, with a maximum number of eight. Frequency tables were obtained, and measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated. ROC curves were constructed for the evaluation of Bishop’s score and ultrasonographic measurement of the uterine cervix for the prediction of vaginal delivery. RESULTS: the area under the ROC curve was 0.5 (p=0.8) for the ultrasonographic measurement of the uterine cervix, and 0.6 (p=0.02) for Bishop’s score (cut point ³4). Bishop’s score had a sensitivity of 56.2% and specificity of 67.9% for prediction of vaginal delivery, with a positive likelihood ratio of 1.75 and a negative one of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: ultrasonographic measurement of the uterine cervix was not a good predictor of evolution to vaginal delivery among patients with misoprostol-induced labor. Bishop’s score was a better predictor of vaginal delivery under these circumstances.

    See more
    Cervical ultrasonography versus Bishop score as a predictor of vaginal delivery

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE