ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2019
Induction of labour with sequential double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol versus oral misoprostol alone in obese women.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Value of Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Thickness for Dinoprostone-Induced Labor Success in Obese Pregnant Women: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Peripartum and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnant Women with Elevated Preconceptional Body Mass Index in a Maternity Hospital (Care Level IV).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Obesity at term: What to consider? How to deliver?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using double-balloon catheter placement within 12 h versus within 12-24 h.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of induction of labour in obese women using sequential double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol in comparison with oral misoprostol alone. STUDY
designIn this cohort study, 400 pregnant women with BMI higher than 35 kg/m2 undergoing labour induction at term were included. Induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter and, if necessary, sequential oral misoprostol (n = 216) was compared to oral misoprostol alone (n = 184). The primary outcome measure was the caesarean section rate. Secondary outcome parameters were, among others, the induction-to-delivery-interval, the rate of vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h as well as fetal outcome parameters.
resultsThe caesarean section rate was significantly lower in the group with sequential use of double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol (27.6% versus 37.5%, p = 0.0345). After stratification for parity this reduction was seen especially in nulliparous (38.6% versus 56.9%, p = 0.0039). The rate of abnormal CTG was significantly lower as well (19.9% versus 30.4%, p = 0.0150), particularly in nulliparous (25.9% versus 40.4%, p = 0.0138). Uni- and multivariable analyzes showed that the caesarean section rate was significantly influenced by the method of induction of labour (p = 0.0026), parity (p < 0.0001) and Bishop score (p = 0.0425).
conclusionIn obese women, induction of labour with sequential use of double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol is associated with significantly more normal vaginal deliveries and less caesarean sections.
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.