Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor

Open access
Sherer, D. M., Miodovnik, M., Bradley, K. S., Langer, O.·2002·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that no correlation exists between transvaginal digital examination compared with the gold standard technique of transabdominal suprapubic ultrasound assessment of fetal head position during the second stage of labor. A secondary objective was to compare the performance of attending physicians vs. senior residents in depicting fetal head position by transvaginal digital examination in comparison with ultrasound assessment. Methods: Consecutive patients in the second‐stage of labor at term with normal singleton cephalic‐presenting fetuses and ruptured membranes were included. Transvaginal digital examinations were performed by either attending physicians or senior residents and were followed immediately by transverse suprapubic transabdominal sonographic assessments performed by a single sonographer. Examiners were blinded to each other's findings. Power analysis dictated sample size. Exact binomial confidence intervals around observed rates were compared with χ 2 and Cohen's κ‐tests. Logistic regression was applied. P < 0.05 was considered significant throughout. Results: One hundred and twelve patients were studied. The absolute error of transvaginal digital examinations was recorded in 65% of patients (95% confidence interval, 56–74%). Parity, pelvic station, combined spinal epidural anesthesia, length of first or second stages of labor, use of oxytocin augmentation, gestational age, mode of delivery, birth weight, and examiner experience did not significantly affect examination accuracy. Stratification, when the transvaginal digital examination was recorded as correct if occurring within ±45° of the ultrasound assessment, reduced the error of the transvaginal digital examinations to 39% (95% confidence interval, 30–49%). Independent variables again did not affect examination accuracy in this assessment modality. Rates of agreement between the two methods for attending physicians compared with residents were not significantly different. The overall degrees of agreement were 40% (95% confidence interval, 26–55%) and 68% (95% confidence interval, 53–80%) (κ = 0.25 and 0.30) for the absolute agreement and ±45° assessment modalities, respectively, for attending physicians, and 31% (95% confidence interval, 20–44%) and 55% (95% confidence interval, 42–68%) (κ = 0.14 and 0.12) for senior residents. Conclusion: Using ultrasound assessment as the gold standard, our data demonstrate a high rate of error (65%) in transvaginal digital determination of fetal head position during the second stage of labor. The performance of senior residents in transvaginal digital examinations did not differ significantly from that of attending physicians. Intrapartum ultrasound increases the accuracy of fetal head position assessment during the second stage of labor. Copyright © 2002 ISUOG

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Sherer, D. M., Miodovnik, M., Bradley, K. S., & Langer, O.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
264-268
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W4238847929
Cited by
271
References
0
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x
The paper
Sherer, D. M., Miodovnik, M., Bradley, K. S., & Langer, O. (2002). Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.