2Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med,1996, 334:567-572.
3Bozenberg P, Goffinet F, Hessabi M, et al. Comparison of the Bishop score, ultrasonographically measured cervical length, and fetal fibronectin assay in predicting time until delivery and type of delivery at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 182:108-113.
4Anderson HF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound, 1991,19:77-80.
5Owen J, Neely C, Northen A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 181:780-783.
6Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ, et al. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length.Obstet Gynecol, 1992, 79: 214-218.
7Murakawa H, Utumi T, Hasegawa I, et al. Evalution of threatened preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol, 1993, 82:829-832.
8Iams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, et al. Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol, 1994, 84:40-46.
9Persson B, Hanson U, Lunell NO. Diabetes mellitus and pregnancy. In Alberti KGMM, De Fronzo RA, Keen H, eds. International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1992.1096-1099.
10O′sullivan JB, Mahau CM. Criteria for the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Diabetes, 1964, 13:278-285.
