Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10174321›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997

Cost implications in the management of induction of labour.

S J Taylor, C L Armour

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S J TaylorDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. suet@pharm.usyd.edu.au
C L Armour
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many years the standard treatment of induction of labour has been amniotomy followed by intravenous oxytocin. More recently prostaglandin E2 (PGE2; dinoprostone), in various preparations, has been used to both ripen the cervix before amniotomy and administration of oxytocin, and to induce labour on its own. Since the acquisition cost of PGE2 is approximately 15 times that of oxytocin, it is important to justify the use of PGE2. In this paper, literature from 1970 to 1996 has been reviewed and outcomes following the use of PGE2, plus amniotomy and oxytocin if necessary, have been compared with outcomes following the use of amniotomy plus oxytocin alone. No significant differences in the mode of delivery and no serious adverse effects in mothers or babies were detected. Three economic analyses of these approaches to induction of labour have been reviewed. While under certain conditions there may be some cost savings associated with the use of PGE2, neither of the studies reviewed showed substantial, reliable cost savings. Further research is required to identify the patients who would gain most benefit from the use of PGE2.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyDinoprostone

Identifiers

PMID10174321
OpenAlexW1972663759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.