['The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonographic and digital examination of the cervix in the prediction of preterm delivery in patients presenting with preterm labor and intact membranes.', 'Endovaginal ultrasonography was performed in 59 patients admitted with preterm labor (20 to 35 weeks) and cervical dilatation of < 3 cm. Cervical parameters evaluated included endocervical length, the presence of funneling, funnel length, funnel width, cervical index ([Funnel length + 1]/Endocervical length), and cervical dilatation and effacement as determined by digital examination. Outcome variables were the occurrence of preterm delivery (< 36 weeks) and the admission-to-delivery interval.', 'The prevalence of preterm delivery was 37.3% (22/59). Receiver-operator characteristic curve and logistic regression analyses indicated a significant relationship between the occurrence of preterm delivery and ultrasonographic cervical parameters (p < 0.005 for each) but not with the results of digital examination of the cervix. Survival analysis demonstrated a shorter admission-to-delivery interval for patients with an abnormal cervical index or endocervical length (p < 0.005 for each).'] Is ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes?