Download PDF
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

Diny G. E. Kolkman
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Corine J. M. Verhoeven
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
,
Sophie J. Brinkhorst
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Joris A. M. van der Post
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Eva Pajkrt
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Brent C. Opmeer
3   Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Ben Willem J. Mol
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 May 2012

31 August 2012

Publication Date:
02 January 2013 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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
 

  • References

  • 1 The Netherlands Perinatal Registry, 2006. Available at: http://www.perinatreg.nl/home . Accessed February 1, 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Queenan JT, Hobbins JC, Spong CY. Protocols for High Risk Pregnancies. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Wiles-Blackwell; 2010
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Burnett Jr JE. Preinduction scoring: an objective approach to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1966; 28 (4) 479-483
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 1974; 19: 716-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bique C, Bugalho A, Bergström S. Labor induction by vaginal misoprostol in grand multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 198-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A. Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 309-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lauersen NH, Wilson KH. Induction of labor with oral prostaglandin E2. Obstet Gynecol 1974; 44: 793-801
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Miller JF, Welply GA, Elstein M. Prostaglandin E2 tablets compared with intravenous oxytocin in induction of labour. BMJ 1975; 1: 14-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Toth T, Selovic A. Outcome and duration of induced deliveries in General hospital Bjelovar. Gynaecol Perinatol 2003; 12: 26-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Varma TR, Norman J, Cowell L. Induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2 pessaries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1983; 21: 55-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Wein P. Efficacy of different starting doses of oxytocin for induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 863-868
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Gant NF , et al. Williams Manual of Obstetrics. 21st ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Treffers PE, Prins M. Praktische verloskunde. 10th ed. Houten, Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2009
    Google Scholar