Trial reportBioMed research international2014
Prostaglandin E2 labour induction with intravaginal (Minprostin) versus intracervical (Prepidil) administration at term: randomized study of maternal and neonatal outcome and patient's perception using the osgood semantic differential scales.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring homologous recombination repair and base excision repair pathway genes for possible diagnostic markers in hematologic malignancies.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2023Article
- Comparison of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Late-Term Pregnancy and the Rate of Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Study in Ten Centers in South China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature.AJP reports · 2018Review
- Clinical Study: Change in Outlook Towards Birth After a Midwife Led Antenatal Education Programme Versus Hypnoreflexogenous Self-Hypnosis Training for Childbirth.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the efficacy, safety, and patient's perception of two prostaglandin E2 application methods for induction of labour.
methodAbove 36th weeks of gestation, all women, who were admitted to hospital for induction of labour, were prospectively randomised to intravaginal 1 mg or intracervical 0.5 mg irrespective of cervical Bishop score. The main outcome variables were induction-to-delivery interval, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, rate of vaginal delivery, and patient's perception using semantic differential questionnaire.
resultsThirty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in regard to perceptions of induction. The median induction delivery time using intravaginal versus intracervical administration was 29.9 versus 12.8 hours, respectively (P = 0.04). No statistically difference between the groups was detected in regard to parity, gestation age, cervical Bishop score, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, and mode of birth. SUMMARY: Irrespective of the cervical Bishop Score, intracervical gel had a shorter induction delivery time without impingement on the women's perception 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.