Related Experiment Videos
Cervical assessment: visual or digital?
M A Morgan1, M de Veciana, P J Rumney
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, USA.
Our hypothesis for this study was that visual cervical assessment is not equivalent to digital assessment in patients with uterine contractions. We compared visual with digital cervical examinations done on 133 gravid women evaluated in the labor and delivery department because of uterine contractions. Patients at 27 weeks' gestation or more, subjectively in early labor, were prospectively entered into the study. Cervical dilatation and effacement were determined by two separate examiners blinded to each other's assessment, one by digital examination and the other by visual examination, in random order no more than 5 minutes apart. Eight of 133 patients were excluded from data analysis because of inability to visualize the cervix during speculum examination. Data analysis was done with correlation coefficient and the Bland and Altman test for agreement of two clinical measurements. Visual examination only underestimated actual cervical dilation by 0.60 cm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.62 cm) and the limits of agreement were -2.06 cm (95% CI -2.02 to -2.09 cm) to 3.25 cm (95% CI 3.21 to 3.29 cm). Similarly, visual assessment underestimated effacement by 14.2% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.6%) and the limits of agreement were -41.3% (95% CI -40.5% to 42.0%) to 69.9% (95% CI 68.8% to 70.4%). In conclusion, cervical assessment in patients with uterine contractions who are thought to be in labor by visual speculum examination is not equivalent to that by digital examination. This difference seems to only be clinically significant if the cervix is more than 3 cm dilated.
Our hypothesis for this study was that visual cervical assessment is not equivalent to digital assessment in patients with uterine contractions. We compared visual with digital cervical examinations done on 133 gravid women evaluated in the labor and delivery department because of uterine contractions. Patients at 27 weeks' gestation or more, subjectively in early labor, were prospectively entered into the study. Cervical dilatation and effacement were determined by two separate examiners blinded to each other's assessment, one by digital examination and the other by visual examination, in random order no more than 5 minutes apart. Eight of 133 patients were excluded from data analysis because of inability to visualize the cervix during speculum examination. Data analysis was done with correlation coefficient and the Bland and Altman test for agreement of two clinical measurements. Visual examination only underestimated actual cervical dilation by 0.60 cm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.62 cm) and the limits of agreement were -2.06 cm (95% CI -2.02 to -2.09 cm) to 3.25 cm (95% CI 3.21 to 3.29 cm). Similarly, visual assessment underestimated effacement by 14.2% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.6%) and the limits of agreement were -41.3% (95% CI -40.5% to 42.0%) to 69.9% (95% CI 68.8% to 70.4%). In conclusion, cervical assessment in patients with uterine contractions who are thought to be in labor by visual speculum examination is not equivalent to that by digital examination. This difference seems to only be clinically significant if the cervix is more than 3 cm dilated.