Cargando…

Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the reliability of ultrasound method compared with digital vaginal examinations in detecting cervical dilation. METHODS: We searched Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, Trip Database, PubMed, DARE an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mohaghegh, Zaynab, Jahanfar, Shayesteh, Abedi, Parvin, El Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34403002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00239-1
_version_ 1783739563626201088
author Mohaghegh, Zaynab
Jahanfar, Shayesteh
Abedi, Parvin
El Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd
author_facet Mohaghegh, Zaynab
Jahanfar, Shayesteh
Abedi, Parvin
El Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd
author_sort Mohaghegh, Zaynab
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the reliability of ultrasound method compared with digital vaginal examinations in detecting cervical dilation. METHODS: We searched Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, Trip Database, PubMed, DARE and NHS EED, HTA, and PROSPERO. Ten observational studies with a total sample size of 856 were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged between 0.21 and 0.69. The fixed-effect models for the ultrasound test showed an average of ICC (r = 0.32 (95% CI 0.26–0.38). Correlation between two methods was poor (r = 0.359, 95% CI 0.26–0.44). In nulliparous and multigravida participants the correlation between ultrasound measurements and digital examinations was (r = 0.349, 95% CI 0.25–0.43) and ICC (r = 0.676, 95% CI 0.419–0.833), respectively. CONCLUSION: Trans-perineal ultrasonography seems to be a reliable method for assessing labor progression in multigravida women, but its usage in nulliparous women needs further studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8371058
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83710582021-09-02 Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review Mohaghegh, Zaynab Jahanfar, Shayesteh Abedi, Parvin El Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd Ultrasound J Review BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the reliability of ultrasound method compared with digital vaginal examinations in detecting cervical dilation. METHODS: We searched Cochrane (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science Core Collection, Trip Database, PubMed, DARE and NHS EED, HTA, and PROSPERO. Ten observational studies with a total sample size of 856 were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged between 0.21 and 0.69. The fixed-effect models for the ultrasound test showed an average of ICC (r = 0.32 (95% CI 0.26–0.38). Correlation between two methods was poor (r = 0.359, 95% CI 0.26–0.44). In nulliparous and multigravida participants the correlation between ultrasound measurements and digital examinations was (r = 0.349, 95% CI 0.25–0.43) and ICC (r = 0.676, 95% CI 0.419–0.833), respectively. CONCLUSION: Trans-perineal ultrasonography seems to be a reliable method for assessing labor progression in multigravida women, but its usage in nulliparous women needs further studies. Springer International Publishing 2021-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8371058/ /pubmed/34403002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00239-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Mohaghegh, Zaynab
Jahanfar, Shayesteh
Abedi, Parvin
El Aziz, Mohamed A. Abd
Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title_full Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title_fullStr Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title_short Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
title_sort reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8371058/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34403002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13089-021-00239-1
work_keys_str_mv AT mohagheghzaynab reliabilityofultrasoundversusdigitalvaginalexaminationindetectingcervicaldilatationduringlaboradiagnostictestaccuracysystematicreview
AT jahanfarshayesteh reliabilityofultrasoundversusdigitalvaginalexaminationindetectingcervicaldilatationduringlaboradiagnostictestaccuracysystematicreview
AT abediparvin reliabilityofultrasoundversusdigitalvaginalexaminationindetectingcervicaldilatationduringlaboradiagnostictestaccuracysystematicreview
AT elazizmohamedaabd reliabilityofultrasoundversusdigitalvaginalexaminationindetectingcervicaldilatationduringlaboradiagnostictestaccuracysystematicreview