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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 132 - 139
Main Authors Kok, N., Wiersma, I. C., Opmeer, B. C., de Graaf, I. M., Mol, B. W., Pajkrt, E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.08.2013
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet 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