English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

the ultrasound journal

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