Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2015
Labor induction utilizing the Foley balloon: a randomized trial comparing standard placement versus immediate removal.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare time to delivery between two induction procedures. The Foley balloon is a mechanical method for cervical ripening. However, the device may also result in endogenous prostaglandin release following separation of the chorionic membrane and decidua. Prolonged Foley placement may therefore be unnecessary for successful labor induction.
methodRandomized controlled trial of labor induction at LAC+USC Medical Center between 2010 and 2013. Subjects were assigned to either (a) standard placement of the Foley balloon or (b) Foley balloon insufflation and immediate removal. Oxytocin was administered to all subjects not in active labor after 12 h. Delivery information and neonatal outcomes were documented and all patients were followed for 6 weeks for adverse events.
resultA total of 79 women were included in the analysis (37 standard and 42 immediate). Induction time was 8.6 h longer in the immediate removal group (23.5 vs 32.1, P=0.002), but the difference in delivery within 24 h did not meet the statistical significance (46.0 vs 28.6%, P=0.11). Similar rates of cesarean delivery, epidural use and abnormal APGAR scores were observed. After controlling for number of vaginal exams and duration of rupture, a decreased risk of infection was observed in the immediate removal group (odds ratio=0.08, 95% confidence interval=0.007 to 0.93, P=0.04). Further, when the analysis was stratified by parity, differences in induction time only persisted in nulliparous women.
conclusionImmediate removal of the Foley balloon may lead to longer overall induction time, but a lower risk of infection. Parous women may be particularly good candidates for this type of induction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.