Bishop Score in Induction of Labor in Unfavorable Cervix and Success of Labor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56056/amj.2025.339Keywords:
Abnormal cervix, Bishop score, Labor induction, Prospective studyAbstract
Background and objectives: The ripeness of the cervix has a potential impact on the successful of labor induction; however, an unfavorable or unripe cervix hinders the labor induction process. Thus, we aimed to determine the relationship between Bishop score and the success of labor induction in the unfavorable cervix.
Methods: This cross-sectional prospective study was conducted on 100 pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix and a Bishop score <5 at Sulaimani Maternity Teaching Hospital, Sulaimaniyah, Iraq, from May 2022 to May 2023. The women's primary and clinical data were reported. Various medications at various doses and routes were used for labor induction. Then, correlations between variables and different maternal factors were found.
Results: Most women (55%) were aged 20-30 years, multipara (59%), urban (61%), literate (92%) and had gestational age of 40-41 weeks (89%) with O+ blood group (41%). Additionally, most women (40%) received a combination of misoprostol and pitocin for labor induction and had a normal vaginal delivery (73%), with a 100% alive baby born. Moreover, the score of labor induction were significantly higher (p?0.05) in normal vaginal delivery than in caesarian delivery. Finally, the parity was significantly (p=0.002), and the bishop score was highly significantly (p<0.001) associated with the success of labor.
Conclusions: A combination therapy resulted in the most successful labor induction and most vaginal delivery. Parity was related to successful labor induction, while maternal age did not. Increased bishop score is directly related to normal vaginal delivery.
Downloads
References
Lee DS, Tandel MD, Kwan L, Francoeur AA, Duong H-L, Negi M. Favorable simplified Bishop score after cervical ripening associated with decreased cesarean birth rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 4(2):100534.
Ikeotuonye AC, Anikwe CC, Obuna JA, Okorochukwu BC, Ejikeme BN, Ifemelumma CC, et al. Relationship between Bishop Score and success of induction of labour in Federal Teaching Hospital, Abakaliki, Ebonyi state. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 8(11):980-992.
Solone M, Shaw K. Induction of labor with an unfavorable cervi. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 32(2):107-112.
Hofmeyr GJ. Induction of labour with an unfavourable cervix. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003; 17(5):777-794.
Ten Eikelder ML, Neervoort F, Rengerink KO, Jozwiak M, De Leeuw J-W, De Graaf I, et al. Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II studies, a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2013; 13(1):1-6.
Hoffman MK, Grant GH, editors. Induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean delivery. Semin. Perinatal. 2015; 39 (6): 471-474.
Lewis MJ. An Investigation of the Effects of Pitocin for Labor Induction and Augmentation on Breastfeeding Success; 2012. Open Access Senior Thesis.https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi article=1112&context=scripps_theses/
Navve D, Orenstein N, Ribak R, Daykan Y, Shechter-Maor G, Biron-Shental T. Is the Bishop-score significant in predicting the success of labor induction in multiparous women J Perinatol. 2017; 37(5):480-483.
Gokturk U, Cavkaytar S, Dansman N. Can measurement of cervical length, fetal head position and posterior cervical angle be an alternative method to Bishop score in the prediction of successful labor induction J Mater-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28(11):1360-1365.
Dimassi K, Erray S, Ben Amor A, Triki A, Gara F. Predicting the success of labour induction: Bishop score versus ultrasound score. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48:221-221.
Abdullah ZH, Chew KT, Velayudham VR, Yahaya Z, Jamil AA, Abu MA, et al. Pre-induction cervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasound versus Bishops cervical scoring as predictors of successful induction of labour in term pregnancies: A hospital-based comparative clinical trial. Plos One. 2022; 17(1): e0262387.
Tollon P, Blanc Petitjean P, Drumez E, Ghesquière L, Le Ray C, Garabedian C. Prediction of successful labor induction with very unfavorable cervix: A comparison of six scores. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023; 160(1):53-58.
Mehta K, Kuma D, Fathepuriya DS, Verma L. Incidence of Cesarean Delivery after Induction of Labour with Dinoprostone Gel at Term in Nulliparous Women with Unfavourable Bishop Score. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 6(4):1253-1258.
Gibreil MM, Elboghdady AA, AL-Bohy AMS. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length and posterior cervical angle versus bishop scoring in assessment of induction of labour. Egypt J Hospt Med. 2018; 73(6):6870-6877.
Wallstrom T, Bjorklund J, Frykman J, Jarnbert-Pettersson H, Akerud H, Darj E, et al. Induction of labor after one previous Cesarean section in women with an unfavorable cervix: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13(7): e0200024.
Lueth GD, Kebede A, Medhanyie AA. Prevalence, outcomes and associated factors of labor induction among women delivered at public hospitals of MEKELLE town- (a hospital based cross sectional study). BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2020; 20(1):1-10.
Levine LD, Downes KL, Parry S, Elovitz MA, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(2):254. e251-254. e257.
Pennell C, Henderson J, O’Neill M, McCleery S, Doherty D, Dickinson J. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 116(11):1443-1452.
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hawzhin Othman Rashid, Rozhan Yassin Khalil

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in AMJ (The Scientific Journal of Kurdistan Higher Council of Medical Specialties )is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)