Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28912192›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Mechanical cervicAl ripeninG for women with PrOlongedPregnancies (MAGPOP): protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a silicone double balloon catheter versus the Propess system for the slow release of dinoprostone for cervical ripening of prolonged pregnancies.

Caroline Diguisto, Amélie Le Gouge, Bruno Giraudeau, Franck Perrotin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02907060 (Propess® Versus Double Balloon for Cervical Ripening of Prolonged Pregnancies), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT02907060 phase3completednot on this map

Propess® Versus Double Balloon for Cervical Ripening of Prolonged Pregnancies: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, ToursRan2017 to 2018Enrolled1,224ConditionsProlonged PregnancyArmsMechanical cervical ripening, Pharmacological cervical ripening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  5. Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline DiguistoMaternité Olympe de Gouges, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Tours, Tonnellé, France.
Amélie Le GougeINSERM CIC 1415, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.
Bruno GiraudeauUniversité François Rabelais Tours, Tonnellé, France.
Franck PerrotinMaternité Olympe de Gouges, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Tours, Tonnellé, France.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRAdaptation Biologique et Vieillissement

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInduction of labour for prolonged pregnancies (PP) when the cervix is unfavourable is a challenging situation. Cervical ripening by pharmacological or mechanical techniques before oxytocin administration is used to increase the likelihood of vaginal delivery. Both techniques are equally effective in achieving vaginal delivery but excessive uterine activity, which induces fetal heart rate (FHR) anomalies, is more frequent after the pharmacological intervention. We hypothesised that mechanical cervical ripening could reduce the caesarean rate for non-reassuring FHR especially in PP where fetuses are already susceptible to this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial that aims to compare cervical ripening with a mechanical device (Cervical Ripening Balloon, Cook-Medical Europe, Ireland) inserted in standardised manner for 24 hours to pharmacological cervical ripening (Propess system for slow release system of 10 mg of dinoprostone, Ferring SAS, France) before oxytocin administration. Women (n=1220) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio in 15 French units. Participants will be women with a singleton pregnancy, a vertex presentation, a term ≥41+0 and≤42+0 week's gestation, and for whom induction of labour is planned. Women with a Bishop score ≥6, a prior caesarean delivery, premature rupture of membranes or with any contraindication for vaginal delivery will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the caesarean rate for non-reassuring FHR. Secondary outcomes are related to delivery and perinatal morbidity. As study investigators and patients cannot be masked to treatment assignment, to compensate for the absence of blinding, an independent endpoint adjudication committee, blinded to group allocation, will determine whether the caesarean for non-reassuring FHR was justified. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The Tours Research ethics committee has approved this study (2016-R23, 29 November 2016). Study findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02907060; pre-results.

Indexed as

Cervical RipeningDelivery, ObstetricPregnancy, ProlongedAdolescentAdultCathetersCervix UteriDelayed-Action PreparationsDinoprostoneFemaleFranceHeart Rate, FetalHumansIrelandLabor, InducedOxytocicsDelayed-Action PreparationsDinoprostoneOxytocicsOxytocinSiliconescesareanmechanical cervical ripeningprolonged pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID28912192
PMCPMC5640144
OpenAlexW2756329874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.