Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta‐analysis
ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS). Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify art...
Saved in:
Published in | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 132 - 139 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Chichester, UK
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
01.08.2013
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | ABSTRACT
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS).
Methods
PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta‐analysis to estimate summary receiver–operating characteristics (sROC) curves.
Results
We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut‐offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60–0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82–0.97); cut‐offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81–0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26–0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut‐offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42–0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80–0.96); cut‐offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89–0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30–0.87).
Conclusions
This meta‐analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS). Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary receiver-operating characteristics (sROC) curves. Results We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut-offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97); cut-offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26-0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut-offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-0.96); cut-offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.87). Conclusions This meta-analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment ( LUS ) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor ( TOL ) in women with a previous Cesarean section ( CS ). Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary receiver-operating characteristics ( sROC ) curves. Results We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut-offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI , 0.60-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI , 0.82-0.97); cut-offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI , 0.81-0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI , 0.26-0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut-offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI , 0.42-0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI , 0.80-0.96); cut-offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI , 0.89-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI , 0.30-0.87). Conclusions This meta-analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL . Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. Copyright [copy 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS). Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta‐analysis to estimate summary receiver–operating characteristics (sROC) curves. Results We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut‐offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60–0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82–0.97); cut‐offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81–0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26–0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut‐offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42–0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80–0.96); cut‐offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89–0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30–0.87). Conclusions This meta‐analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS).OBJECTIVETo evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS).PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary receiver-operating characteristics (sROC) curves.METHODSPubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary receiver-operating characteristics (sROC) curves.We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut-offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97); cut-offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26-0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut-offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-0.96); cut-offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.87).RESULTSWe included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut-offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97); cut-offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26-0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut-offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-0.96); cut-offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.87).This meta-analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement.CONCLUSIONSThis meta-analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a trial of labor (TOL) in women with a previous Cesarean section (CS). PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify articles published on the subject of sonographic LUS measurement and occurrence of a uterine defect after delivery. Four independent researchers performed identification of papers and data extraction. Selected studies were scored on methodological quality, and sensitivity and specificity of measurement of LUS thickness in the prediction of a uterine defect were calculated. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to estimate summary receiver-operating characteristics (sROC) curves. We included 21 studies with a total of 2776 analyzed patients. The quality of included studies was good, although comparison was difficult because of heterogeneity. The estimated sROC curves showed that measurement of LUS thickness seems promising in the prediction of occurrence of uterine defects (dehiscence and rupture) in the uterine wall. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of myometrial LUS thickness for cut-offs between 0.6 and 2.0 mm was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60-0.87) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97); cut-offs between 2.1 and 4.0 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.26-0.90). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of full LUS thickness for cut-offs between 2.0 and 3.0 mm was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42-0.77) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-0.96); cut-offs between 3.1 and 5.1 mm reached a sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.87). This meta-analysis provides support for the use of antenatal LUS measurements in the prediction of a uterine defect during TOL. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective observational studies using a standardized method of measurement. |
Author | de Graaf, I. M. Pajkrt, E. Mol, B. W. Kok, N. Opmeer, B. C. Wiersma, I. C. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: N. surname: Kok fullname: Kok, N. organization: Academic Medical Centre – sequence: 2 givenname: I. C. surname: Wiersma fullname: Wiersma, I. C. organization: Academic Medical Centre – sequence: 3 givenname: B. C. surname: Opmeer fullname: Opmeer, B. C. organization: Academic Medical Centre – sequence: 4 givenname: I. M. surname: de Graaf fullname: de Graaf, I. M. organization: Academic Medical Centre – sequence: 5 givenname: B. W. surname: Mol fullname: Mol, B. W. organization: Academic Medical Centre – sequence: 6 givenname: E. surname: Pajkrt fullname: Pajkrt, E. organization: Academic Medical Centre |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576473$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqN0ktuFDEQBmALBZFJYMEFkCU2sOjEr36YHRpBQIqUBWTdqnZXTxy67cF2M5odR-AYnIuT4JkJWUQCsbIsf_X7VSfkyHmHhDzn7IwzJs5nvzrjQtX6EVlwVemC1aw8IgumK1bUlRbH5CTGW8ZYpWT1hBwLWdaVquWC_PzknV8FWN9YQyeEOAec0CXqBzr6DQY6JwzWIY242i-kLL84jJEmT9cBe2vSPQrzOuUE2s95uqJAU7Aw7sOg84FaRzc-x9CNTTe76m_Wz5EuMUJAcHkTk6x3b3LlhAl-ff8BDsZttPEpeTzAGPHZ3XhKrt-_-7z8UFxeXXxcvr0sjBJcF7IDI0XFTNfgoDpoOhBKciw1dKpktTZ93ze8kwNHOWjZlPklJCIbmKxNB_KUvDrkroP_OmNM7WSjwXEEh_moLVdSMVFpKf6D8rJijZQ805cP6K2fQ77aXgml6lrv1Is7NXcT9u062AnCtv3zXRm8PgATfIwBh3vCWbtrhTa3QrtvhWzPH1hjE-xeNwWw478qNnbE7d-j2-uri0PFb8dPyPA |
CODEN | UOGYFJ |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2018_02_020 crossref_primary_10_5180_jsgoe_38_1_125 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_17349 crossref_primary_10_1080_14767058_2017_1331428 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_43976 crossref_primary_10_31083_j_ceog4901029 crossref_primary_10_1097_01_PGO_0001017976_32025_96 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_023_05370_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2016_06_018 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajogmf_2021_100423 crossref_primary_10_26442_20795696_2020_5_200415 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_015_3687_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijgo_13902 crossref_primary_10_5005_jp_journals_10009_1698 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radcr_2024_09_046 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_1768_2472 crossref_primary_10_1080_14767058_2020_1719065 crossref_primary_10_1515_jpm_2023_0211 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinimag_2020_03_006 crossref_primary_10_1002_jcu_22540 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2021_09_021 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bpobgyn_2021_08_006 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13224_021_01459_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2016_03_019 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_23727 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2022_831588 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2022_10_030 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_018_4805_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2015_12_009 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2018_11_008 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10396_016_0709_x crossref_primary_10_1097_OGX_0000000000001143 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_17401 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_020_05811_z crossref_primary_10_1515_jpm_2020_0222 crossref_primary_10_4236_ojog_2015_511091 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2018_03_035 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_placenta_2020_05_011 crossref_primary_10_5005_jp_journals_10006_2241 crossref_primary_10_17816_JOWD66382_88 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_18405 crossref_primary_10_3389_fendo_2022_851213 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_advms_2017_01_004 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_018_4988_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2024_02_025 crossref_primary_10_22159_ajpcr_2021_v14i9_42491 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2024_05_023 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogc_2019_04_004 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare12100988 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm12113720 crossref_primary_10_1002_jcu_22485 crossref_primary_10_1055_s_0044_1788588 crossref_primary_10_1177_0300060520954993 crossref_primary_10_1080_14767058_2020_1849121 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2022_01_027 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajogmf_2024_101543 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2018_02_011 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_19046 crossref_primary_10_1080_07853890_2021_1959049 crossref_primary_10_1111_aogs_13059 crossref_primary_10_1155_2015_596826 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2015_02_012 crossref_primary_10_4236_ojog_2016_61001 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_019_2314_7 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_23133 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_lers_2020_09_003 crossref_primary_10_1155_2023_9189792 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_022_04747_3 crossref_primary_10_1111_1471_0528_17872 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2021_08_005 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0240675 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jogoh_2023_102598 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_024_06446_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_025_07370_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_021_06121_8 crossref_primary_10_1111_aogs_15009 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_18901 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_014_3455_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejogrb_2018_04_013 crossref_primary_10_2147_IJWH_S422187 crossref_primary_10_1002_ccr3_766 crossref_primary_10_1111_aogs_13585 crossref_primary_10_1097_RUQ_0000000000000260 crossref_primary_10_1051_medsci_201834f109 crossref_primary_10_1089_gyn_2015_0071 crossref_primary_10_1111_1471_0528_15048 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_44489_6 crossref_primary_10_3923_rjog_2019_17_22 crossref_primary_10_1111_jog_14633 crossref_primary_10_1089_gyn_2019_0033 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_021_04040_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gofs_2024_03_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_xagr_2022_100085 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_15786 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_025_07963_2 crossref_primary_10_12677_ACM_2022_12111518 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jcma_2018_07_006 crossref_primary_10_38136_jgon_1084777 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmig_2021_03_012 crossref_primary_10_1111_jog_12738 crossref_primary_10_1111_jog_16015 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42058_020_00044_0 crossref_primary_10_4103_gmit_gmit_116_22 crossref_primary_10_1067_j_cpradiol_2016_12_007 crossref_primary_10_5005_jp_journals_10009_1632 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2022_9892 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12905_021_01337_x crossref_primary_10_1055_s_0041_1736183 crossref_primary_10_1080_14767058_2021_1999923 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12884_014_0365_3 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_26024 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina58030407 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_024_07501_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajogmf_2023_100992 crossref_primary_10_2147_IJWH_S267691 crossref_primary_10_1590_1806_9282_65_5_714 crossref_primary_10_17816_aog624957 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tjog_2021_03_006 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics13182890 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10396_022_01265_9 |
Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00620-1 10.1016/j.mefs.2010.06.006 10.1272/jnms.67.352 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90461-4 10.1056/NEJM200107053450101 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90921-6 10.1067/mob.2002.119923 10.1373/clinchem.2007.096032 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2000.tb01168.x 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199609)24:7<355::AID-JCU5>3.0.CO;2-A 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90464-X 10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1441 10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00069-X 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30545-X 10.1002/uog.2718 10.1177/0272989X08319957 10.1055/s-2007-1003943 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251 10.1007/BF02390090 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01169.x 10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.84 10.1620/tjem.183.55 10.1002/sim.1040 10.1007/s00404-010-1384-6 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9 10.1007/BF00932271 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.07.023 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QO 8FD FR3 K9. P64 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1002/uog.12479 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Biotechnology Research Abstracts Technology Research Database Engineering Research Database ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Engineering Research Database Biotechnology Research Abstracts Technology Research Database Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Engineering Research Database MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1469-0705 |
EndPage | 139 |
ExternalDocumentID | 3028561061 23576473 10_1002_uog_12479 UOG12479 |
Genre | article Meta-Analysis Journal Article Review |
GroupedDBID | --- .3N .GA .GJ .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 123 1L6 1OC 24P 29Q 31~ 33P 3SF 3WU 4.4 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52R 52S 52T 52U 52V 52W 52X 53G 5RE 5VS 66C 6PF 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A01 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHHS AAHQN AAIPD AAMNL AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAWTL AAXRX AAYCA AAZKR ABCQN ABCUV ABEML ABIJN ABJNI ABPVW ABQWH ABXGK ACAHQ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGFS ACGOF ACIWK ACMXC ACPOU ACPRK ACSCC ACXBN ACXQS ADBBV ADBTR ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADXAS ADZMN AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUQT AEUYR AFBPY AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFRAH AFWVQ AFZJQ AHBTC AHMBA AIACR AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN ALVPJ AMBMR AMYDB ATUGU AZBYB AZVAB BAFTC BFHJK BHBCM BMXJE BROTX BRXPI BY8 C45 CAG COF CS3 D-6 D-7 D-E D-F DCZOG DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRMAN DRSTM DU5 EBS EJD ESX F00 F01 F04 F5P FUBAC G-S G.N GNP GODZA H.X HF~ HGLYW HHY HHZ HZ~ IHE IX1 J0M JPC KBYEO KQQ LATKE LAW LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRMAN MRSTM MSFUL MSMAN MSSTM MXFUL MXMAN MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ NNB O66 O9- OK1 OVD P2P P2W P2X P2Z P4B P4D PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 QRW R.K ROL RWI RX1 RYL SUPJJ TEORI UB1 V2E V9Y W8V W99 WBKPD WHWMO WIH WIJ WIK WIN WJL WOHZO WQJ WRC WVDHM WXI WXSBR XG1 XV2 YFH ZZTAW ~IA ~WT AAYXX AEYWJ AGHNM AGYGG CITATION AAMMB AEFGJ AGXDD AIDQK AIDYY CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QO 8FD FR3 K9. P64 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4219-3bac3260cb8ef4ba8ba2431e59ab45079cddd81b3f1e3f93855763ee0f037cba3 |
IEDL.DBID | DR2 |
ISSN | 0960-7692 1469-0705 |
IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 11:52:22 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 04:07:52 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 12:27:04 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:05:35 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:56:52 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 00:55:22 EDT 2025 Wed Jan 22 16:39:46 EST 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 2 |
Keywords | Caesarean section uterine rupture sonography trial of labor lower uterine segment |
Language | English |
License | Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4219-3bac3260cb8ef4ba8ba2431e59ab45079cddd81b3f1e3f93855763ee0f037cba3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/uog.12479 |
PMID | 23576473 |
PQID | 1412447791 |
PQPubID | 1006490 |
PageCount | 8 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1434026932 proquest_miscellaneous_1415608331 proquest_journals_1412447791 pubmed_primary_23576473 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_12479 crossref_citationtrail_10_1002_uog_12479 wiley_primary_10_1002_uog_12479_UOG12479 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | August 2013 2013-08-00 2013-Aug 20130801 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2013-08-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 08 year: 2013 text: August 2013 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | Chichester, UK |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Chichester, UK – name: England – name: London |
PublicationTitle | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol |
PublicationYear | 2013 |
Publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Publisher_xml | – name: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd – name: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
References | 2004; 87 2010; 32 2005; 193 2010; 15 2000; 67 1984; 106 2004; 23 2000; 95 1988; 243 1999; 87 2008; 54 2011; 38 2005; 27 1988; 71 2001; 345 2009; 116 1996; 347 2010; 20 2002; 186 1997; 183 2010; 116 2006; 27 2002; 21 2008; 28 2003; 3 1994; 33 2000; 40 2009; 201 1994; 15 1999; 51 2011; 25 1996; 335 2011; 283 1996; 24 2010; 191 2006; 107 1991; 248 2005; 58 Michaels WH (e_1_2_6_17_1) 1988; 71 Vaclavinkova V (e_1_2_6_34_1) 1984; 106 e_1_2_6_32_1 e_1_2_6_10_1 e_1_2_6_31_1 e_1_2_6_30_1 Dane B (e_1_2_6_22_1) 2010; 20 Bujold E (e_1_2_6_19_1) 2009; 201 e_1_2_6_13_1 e_1_2_6_36_1 e_1_2_6_14_1 e_1_2_6_35_1 e_1_2_6_11_1 Popov I. (e_1_2_6_28_1) 1994; 33 e_1_2_6_12_1 e_1_2_6_33_1 e_1_2_6_18_1 e_1_2_6_39_1 e_1_2_6_15_1 e_1_2_6_38_1 e_1_2_6_16_1 e_1_2_6_37_1 Guise JM (e_1_2_6_40_1) 2010; 191 e_1_2_6_21_1 e_1_2_6_20_1 e_1_2_6_41_1 Montanari L (e_1_2_6_26_1) 1999; 51 e_1_2_6_9_1 e_1_2_6_8_1 e_1_2_6_5_1 e_1_2_6_4_1 e_1_2_6_7_1 e_1_2_6_6_1 e_1_2_6_25_1 e_1_2_6_24_1 e_1_2_6_3_1 e_1_2_6_23_1 e_1_2_6_2_1 e_1_2_6_29_1 e_1_2_6_27_1 |
References_xml | – volume: 87 start-page: 215 year: 2004 end-page: 219 article-title: Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section publication-title: Int J Gynaecol Obstet – volume: 193 start-page: 1016 year: 2005 end-page: 1023 article-title: The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 335 start-page: 689 year: 1996 end-page: 695 article-title: Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section publication-title: N Engl J Med – volume: 15 start-page: 188 year: 2010 end-page: 193 article-title: Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in pregnant women with previous cesarean section publication-title: Middle East Fertility Society Journal – volume: 248 start-page: 129 year: 1991 end-page: 138 article-title: Ultrasound examination of caesarean section scars during pregnancy publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet – volume: 51 start-page: 107 year: 1999 end-page: 112 article-title: Transvaginal ultrasonic evaluation of the thickness of the section of the uterine wall in previous cesarean sections publication-title: Minerva Ginecol – volume: 183 start-page: 55 year: 1997 end-page: 65 article-title: Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment to predict the integrity and quality of cesarean scar during pregnancy: a prospective study publication-title: Tohoku J Exp Med – volume: 58 start-page: 982 year: 2005 end-page: 990 article-title: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews publication-title: J Clin Epidemiol – volume: 347 start-page: 281 year: 1996 end-page: 284 article-title: Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus publication-title: Lancet – volume: 38 start-page: 179 year: 2011 end-page: 192 article-title: Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States publication-title: Clin Perinatol – volume: 87 start-page: 39 year: 1999 end-page: 45 article-title: Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous caesarean sections publication-title: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol – volume: 243 start-page: 221 year: 1988 end-page: 224 article-title: Examination of previous caesarean section scars by ultrasound publication-title: Arch Gynecol Obstet – volume: 24 start-page: 355 year: 1996 end-page: 357 article-title: Sonographic evaluation of the wall thickness of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean section publication-title: J Clin Ultrasound – volume: 32 start-page: 321 year: 2010 end-page: 327 article-title: Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can – volume: 23 start-page: 1441 year: 2004 end-page: 1447 article-title: Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery publication-title: J Ultrasound Med – volume: 347 start-page: 838 year: 1996 end-page: 839 article-title: Rupture of the scarred uterus: prediction and diagnosis publication-title: Lancet – volume: 191 start-page: 1 year: 2010 end-page: 397 article-title: Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights publication-title: Evid Rep Technol Assess – volume: 33 start-page: 10 year: 1994 end-page: 12 article-title: The ultrasonic assessment of the cicatrix after a past cesarean section publication-title: Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) – volume: 40 start-page: 402 year: 2000 end-page: 404 article-title: Preoperative diagnosis of dehiscence of the lower uterine segment in patients with a single previous Caesarean section publication-title: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol – volume: 27 start-page: 420 year: 2006 end-page: 424 article-title: Inter‐ and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section publication-title: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol – volume: 25 start-page: 37 year: 2011 end-page: 43 article-title: The change in the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section publication-title: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol – volume: 347 start-page: 278 year: 1996 article-title: Encouraging trials of labour for patients with previous caesarean birth publication-title: Lancet – volume: 186 start-page: 311 year: 2002 end-page: 314 article-title: Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 116 start-page: 1069 year: 2009 end-page: 1078 article-title: Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population‐based cohort study publication-title: BJOG – volume: 345 start-page: 3 year: 2001 end-page: 8 article-title: Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery publication-title: N Engl J Med – volume: 95 start-page: 596 year: 2000 end-page: 600 article-title: Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 107 start-page: 1226 year: 2006 end-page: 1232 article-title: Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 21 start-page: 589 year: 2002 end-page: 624 article-title: Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression publication-title: Stat Med – volume: 201 start-page: e1 issue: 320 year: 2009 end-page: 6 article-title: Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – volume: 20 start-page: 161 year: 2010 end-page: 164 article-title: Is it possible to predict the lower uterine segment thickness by sonographic examination in cases with previous abdominal delivery? publication-title: Turkiye Klinikleri Jinekoloji Obstetrik – volume: 15 start-page: 112 year: 1994 end-page: 116 article-title: Comparative study of the lower uterine segment after Cesarean section using ultrasound and magnetic resonance tomography publication-title: Ultraschall Med – volume: 106 start-page: 686 year: 1984 end-page: 692 article-title: Ultrasonic diagnosis of scar defects following cesarean section publication-title: Zentralbl Gynäkol – volume: 71 start-page: 112 year: 1988 end-page: 120 article-title: Ultrasound diagnosis of defects in the scarred lower uterine segment during pregnancy publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 28 start-page: 621 year: 2008 end-page: 638 article-title: Bivariate random effects meta‐analysis of ROC curves publication-title: Med Decis Making – volume: 27 start-page: 674 year: 2005 end-page: 681 article-title: Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous caesarean section publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can – volume: 116 start-page: 450 year: 2010 end-page: 463 article-title: ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean delivery publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – volume: 67 start-page: 352 year: 2000 end-page: 356 article-title: Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labour: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography publication-title: J Nippon Med Sch – volume: 3 start-page: 25 year: 2003 article-title: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews publication-title: BMC Med Res Methodol – volume: 54 start-page: 729 year: 2008 end-page: 737 article-title: Bias in sensitivity and specificity caused by data‐driven selection of optimal cut‐off values: mechanisms, magnitude, and solutions publication-title: Clin Chem – volume: 283 start-page: 455 year: 2011 end-page: 459 article-title: Sonographic assessment of lower uterine segment at term in women with previous cesarean delivery publication-title: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics – volume: 20 start-page: 161 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_6_22_1 article-title: Is it possible to predict the lower uterine segment thickness by sonographic examination in cases with previous abdominal delivery? publication-title: Turkiye Klinikleri Jinekoloji Obstetrik – volume: 51 start-page: 107 year: 1999 ident: e_1_2_6_26_1 article-title: Transvaginal ultrasonic evaluation of the thickness of the section of the uterine wall in previous cesarean sections publication-title: Minerva Ginecol – ident: e_1_2_6_39_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066 – ident: e_1_2_6_14_1 doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00620-1 – volume: 106 start-page: 686 year: 1984 ident: e_1_2_6_34_1 article-title: Ultrasonic diagnosis of scar defects following cesarean section publication-title: Zentralbl Gynäkol – ident: e_1_2_6_27_1 doi: 10.1016/j.mefs.2010.06.006 – ident: e_1_2_6_18_1 doi: 10.1272/jnms.67.352 – ident: e_1_2_6_36_1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90461-4 – ident: e_1_2_6_4_1 doi: 10.1056/NEJM200107053450101 – ident: e_1_2_6_11_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 – ident: e_1_2_6_37_1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90921-6 – ident: e_1_2_6_8_1 doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.119923 – ident: e_1_2_6_35_1 doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.096032 – volume: 191 start-page: 1 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_6_40_1 article-title: Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights publication-title: Evid Rep Technol Assess – ident: e_1_2_6_32_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2000.tb01168.x – ident: e_1_2_6_33_1 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199609)24:7<355::AID-JCU5>3.0.CO;2-A – ident: e_1_2_6_7_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02136.x – ident: e_1_2_6_15_1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90464-X – volume: 71 start-page: 112 year: 1988 ident: e_1_2_6_17_1 article-title: Ultrasound diagnosis of defects in the scarred lower uterine segment during pregnancy publication-title: Obstet Gynecol – ident: e_1_2_6_20_1 doi: 10.7863/jum.2004.23.11.1441 – ident: e_1_2_6_30_1 doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00069-X – ident: e_1_2_6_21_1 doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30545-X – ident: e_1_2_6_38_1 doi: 10.1002/uog.2718 – ident: e_1_2_6_13_1 doi: 10.1177/0272989X08319957 – ident: e_1_2_6_24_1 doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1003943 – volume: 33 start-page: 10 year: 1994 ident: e_1_2_6_28_1 article-title: The ultrasonic assessment of the cicatrix after a past cesarean section publication-title: Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) – ident: e_1_2_6_5_1 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251 – ident: e_1_2_6_16_1 doi: 10.1007/BF02390090 – volume: 201 start-page: e1 issue: 320 year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_6_19_1 article-title: Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol – ident: e_1_2_6_2_1 doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007 – ident: e_1_2_6_41_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01169.x – ident: e_1_2_6_6_1 doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.84 – ident: e_1_2_6_29_1 doi: 10.1620/tjem.183.55 – ident: e_1_2_6_12_1 doi: 10.1002/sim.1040 – ident: e_1_2_6_25_1 doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1384-6 – ident: e_1_2_6_3_1 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001 – ident: e_1_2_6_9_1 doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34475-9 – ident: e_1_2_6_23_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00932271 – ident: e_1_2_6_10_1 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 – ident: e_1_2_6_31_1 doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.07.023 |
SSID | ssj0006436 |
Score | 2.4666066 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | ABSTRACT
Objective
To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine... To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture during a... Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture... Objective To evaluate the accuracy of antenatal sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment ( LUS ) thickness in the prediction of risk of uterine rupture... |
SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref wiley |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 132 |
SubjectTerms | Caesarean section Female Humans lower uterine segment Pregnancy Prospective Studies ROC Curve sonography Trial of Labor Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods uterine rupture Uterine Rupture - diagnostic imaging Uterine Rupture - pathology Uterine Rupture - prevention & control Uterus - diagnostic imaging Uterus - pathology Vaginal Birth after Cesarean |
Title | Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta‐analysis |
URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002%2Fuog.12479 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576473 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1412447791 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1415608331 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1434026932 |
Volume | 42 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3NTtwwEB4hDohLKT8t21JkKg5csmRjJ07gVKFShEQrla7EoVJkO84KAclqN9sDJx6hj9Hn4kmYcX5WFFpVvUXK2LGdGfuzZ_wNwK4OgoFAC_RMIHNPSOl7SnPhZX6cCZGoUDue7rPP0clQnF6EFwtw2N6FqfkhugM3sgw3X5OBKz3dn5OGzspRHxcnSZf3KFaLANHXOXUUrrTOT4kI3ZNRErSsQn6w35V8vBY9AZiP8apbcI5X4Hvb1DrO5Ko_q3Tf3P7G4viffXkJLxogyj7UmrMKC7ZYg6WzxtW-Dr_Oy6Kms7407GZ-ksjKnF1TajVGySBQlE3tyL2gyPkrmjlZVbLxhGqqOqHJbEy-ClZfi2SKuXQhrjJSQ3ZZMEcGwehgmEr_oOBcdmSnCmFtgR9xFzAOsOSNrdT93U_V0KlswPD447ejE69J6-AZgfOjx7UyCBp9o2ObC61irQKEMTZMlBYITxOTZRmiaZ4PLM8THoe4J-LW-rnPpdGKv4LFoizsJrAkCnEOyQS5z0WE4IZnkcWttUqyMDZh2IO99genpuE8p9Qb12nN1hykOPKpG_kevO9ExzXRx3NCW62WpI2tT3HzRBhJymTQg53uNVopuV5UYXG0SAahZcz5X2U4buYjBNQ9eF1rYNcSIiWKhOTYIadHf25iOvzyyT28-XfRt7AcuCwfFNe4BYvVZGbfIdaq9LYzqgeyMyhL |
linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3NbtQwEB6VIgGX8k8XChjEgUu22diJY8QFVZQFukWCrtQLimzHqaq2yWo3y4ETj8Bj8Fw8CTPOz6r8CXGLlLFjOzP2Nx77G4AnJopGAi0wsJEsAiFlGGjDRZCHaS6E0rHxPN2T_WQ8FW8O48M1eN7dhWn4IfoNN7IMP1-TgdOG9PaKNXRZHQ1xdZLqAlykjN7eoXq_Io_CtdZHKhGjBzJRUccrFEbbfdHzq9EvEPM8YvVLzu5V-Ng1tjlpcjJc1mZoP__E4_i_vbkGGy0WZS8a5bkOa668AZcmbbT9Jnz7UJUNo_WxZWerzURWFeyUsqsxygeBomzhjvwLOjx_QpMnqys2m1NNdS80X84oXMGam5FMM58xxFdGmsiOS-b5IBjtDVPpT3Q-l-24hUZkW-JH_B2MZ1jyzNX6-5evumVUuQXT3ZcHO-OgzewQWIFTZMCNtogbQ2tSVwijU6MjRDIuVtoIRKjK5nmOgJoXI8cLxdMY3SLuXFiEXFqj-W1YL6vSbQJTSYzTSC4ogi4SxDc8Txx611rlcWrjeABPuz-c2Zb2nLJvnGYNYXOU4chnfuQH8LgXnTVcH78T2urUJGvNfYH-E8EkKdVoAI_612ioFH3RpcPRIhlElynnf5Xh6M8niKkHcKdRwb4lxEuUCMmxQ16R_tzEbPrulX-4---iD-Hy-GCyl-293n97D65EPukHHXPcgvV6vnT3EXrV5oG3sB8Mkixm |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9QwEB6VIlVcKG-WFjCIA5dss7HzMJxQy1IeLQhYqYdKkV-pqrbJajfLgRM_gZ_B7-KXMOM8VuUlxC1Sxo7tzNjfeOxvAB7pKBoJtMDARGkRiDQNA6W5CGyYWSGkirXn6d7bT3Yn4tVBfLACT7u7MA0_RL_hRpbh52sy8KkttpakoYvqaIiLUyovwEWRhBmp9M77JXcULrU-UIkQPUgTGXW0QmG01Rc9vxj9gjDPA1a_4ozX4bBra3PQ5GS4qPXQfP6JxvE_O3MFLrdIlD1rVOcqrLjyGqzttbH26_DtQ1U2fNbHhp0ttxJZVbBTyq3GKBsEirK5O_Iv6Oj8CU2drK7YdEY11b3QbDGlYAVr7kUyxXy-EF8Z6SE7Lplng2C0M0ylP9HpXLbt5gpxbYkf8TcwnmDJM1er71--qpZP5QZMxs8_bu8GbV6HwAicIAOulUHUGBqduUJolWkVIY5xsVRaID6VxlqLcJoXI8cLybMYnSLuXFiEPDVa8ZuwWlaluw1MJjFOIlZQ_FwkiG64TRz61kraODNxPIDH3Q_OTUt6Trk3TvOGrjnKceRzP_IDeNiLThumj98JbXZakrfGPkfviUBSmsrRAB70r9FMKfaiSoejRTKILTPO_yrD0ZtPEFEP4FajgX1LiJUoESnHDnk9-nMT88nbF_7hzr-L3oe1dzvj_M3L_dcbcCnyGT_ojOMmrNazhbuLuKvW97x9_QCQEyse |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sonographic+measurement+of+lower+uterine+segment+thickness+to+predict+uterine+rupture+during+a+trial+of+labor+in+women+with+previous+Cesarean+section%3A+a+meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound+in+obstetrics+%26+gynecology&rft.au=Kok%2C+N.&rft.au=Wiersma%2C+I.+C.&rft.au=Opmeer%2C+B.+C.&rft.au=de+Graaf%2C+I.+M.&rft.date=2013-08-01&rft.pub=John+Wiley+%26+Sons%2C+Ltd&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=132&rft.epage=139&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fuog.12479&rft.externalDBID=10.1002%252Fuog.12479&rft.externalDocID=UOG12479 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0960-7692&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0960-7692&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0960-7692&client=summon |