Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Is the Bishop-score significant in predicting the success of labor induction in multiparous women?

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages 480–483 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

To determine whether the Bishop-score upon admission effects mode of delivery, maternal or neonatal outcomes of labor induction in multiparous women.

Study Design:

A retrospective study including 600 multiparous women with a singleton pregnancy, 34 gestational weeks and above who underwent labor induction for maternal, fetal or combined indications. Induction was performed with one of three methods— oxytocin, a slow release vaginal prostaglandin E2 insert (10 mg dinoprostone) or a transcervical double balloon catheter. The women were divided into two groups—Bishop-score <6 and Bishop-score ⩾6. We evaluated labor course, maternal complications (postpartum hemorrhage, manual lysis, uterine revision, perineal tear grade 3–4, need for blood transfusions, relaparotomy, prolonged hospitalization) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, cord pH, hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit, prolonged hospitalization).

Results:

Both groups had a high rate of vaginal deliveries—93.7% and 94.9%, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of maternal or neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion:

Labor induction in multiparous women is safe and successful regardless of the initial Bishop-score. In multiparous women the Bishop-score is not a good predictor for the success of labor induction, nor is it a predictor for maternal of neonatal adverse outcomes and complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics.. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Part 1):386–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s HealthInduction of Labor—Clinical Guideline for NICE by NHS, July 2008.

  3. Bishop EH . Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL . Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (4): 600–607.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vrouenraets FPJM, Roumen FJME, Dehing CJG, Van Den Akker ESA, Aarts MJB, Scheve EJT . Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (4): 690–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW . Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (5): 1511–1515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK . Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (4): 698–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL . Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95 (6, Part 1): 917–922.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffman MK, Vahratian A, Sciscione AC, Troendle JF, Zhang J . Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (5): 1029–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M . Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (3): 628–633.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS . Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1690–1697.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts D, Critchlow CW . Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (4): 986–994.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heinberg EM, Wood RA, Chambers RB . Elective induction of labor in multiparous women. Does it increase the risk of cesarean section? J Reprod Med 2002; 47: 399–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, Evans SR, Kotelchuck M, Simon C et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (3): 669–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thorsell M, Lyrenäs S, Andolf E, Kaijser M . Induction of labor and the risk for emergency cesarean section in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (10): 1094–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Levine LD, Hirshberg A, Srinivas SK . Term induction of labor and risk of cesarean delivery by parity. J Matern-Fetal Neonat Med 2013; 27 (12):1232–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee HR, Kim M-N, You JY, Choi S-J, Oh S-Y, Roh C-R et al. Risk of cesarean section after induced versus spontaneous labor at term gestation. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2015; 58 (5): 346.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaudet L, Wen SW, Walker M . The combined effect of maternal obesity and fetal macrosomia on pregnancy outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36 (9): 776–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ivars J, Garabedian C, Devos P, Therby D, Carlier S, Deruelle P et al. Simplified Bishop score including parity predicts successful induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 203: 309–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lange AP, Secher NJ, Westergaard JG, Skovgård I . Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60 (2): 137–147.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM . Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (4): 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 'Meir Medical Center', Kfar Saba, Israel

    D Navve, N Orenstein, R Ribak, Y Daykan, G Shechter-Maor & T Biron-Shental

  2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Kfar Saba, Israel

    D Navve, N Orenstein, R Ribak, Y Daykan, G Shechter-Maor & T Biron-Shental

Authors
  1. D Navve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N Orenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R Ribak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y Daykan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G Shechter-Maor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T Biron-Shental
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D Navve.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Navve, D., Orenstein, N., Ribak, R. et al. Is the Bishop-score significant in predicting the success of labor induction in multiparous women?. J Perinatol 37, 480–483 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.260

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.260

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links