Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2015
Foley catheter for induction of labor: potential barriers to adopting the technique.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) in Japanese pregnant women requiring cervical ripening: Results from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2021Trial
- 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
- Review
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if a learning curve exists for cervical Foley placement for labor induction in women with unfavorable cervices and whether labor curves differ compared with the dinoprostone insert (PGE2). STUDY
designWe conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
resultFor Foley and PGE2, successful placement occurred in 157/185 (85%) and 188/191 (98%) women (P<0.001). Unsuccessful Foley placements decreased over time (P=0.005); all occurred at the site previously using PGE2 preferentially. In women with allocated agent placed successfully who achieved complete cervical dilation, median progress with Foley (n=112), compared with PGE2 (n=123), was: 1-3 cm (6.2 vs 14.1 h; P<0.001), 3-6 cm (11.1 vs 6.7 h; P<0.001) and 6-10 cm (1.9 vs 1.5 h; P=0.14).
conclusionThere is a learning curve for placing cervical Foley catheters. Despite faster times to delivery, Foley is associated with slower dilation from 3 to 6 cm compared with PGE2.
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.