Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719513›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019

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.

Yanxing Wei, Xueyuan Li, Yinhui Zhang, Yuewen Guo, Baomin Yin, Dunjin Chen, Yi Chen, Yanping Yu, Bin Zhu, Yiwei Qin and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Yanxing WeiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Xueyuan LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yinhui ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Chancheng, Foshan, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yuewen GuoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First People's Hospital of Shunde, Foshan, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Baomin YinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Child Health Hospital, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Dunjin ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yi ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Hospital of Panyu, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yanping YuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiaolan People's Hospital, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Bin ZhuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Hexian Memorial Hospital of Panyu, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yiwei QinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Huadu People's Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Jianping ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Zhijian WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Nanfang Hospital · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNPanyu District Central Hospital · CNPanyu Hospital of Chinese Medicine · CNSouthern Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNThe First People's Hospital of Shunde · CNXian Central Hospital · CNZhongshan People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Dinoprostone is the recommended primary option for induction of labor (IOL) in late-term pregnancies (LTPs). However, oxytocin is used in developing and rural areas, and studies have supported similar effectiveness for oxytocin and dinoprostone in reducing the rate of cesarean delivery of LTPs with a Bishop's score of between 4-6. This study aimed to compare dinoprostone and oxytocin for IOL in LTPs and the rate of cesarean section in ten centers in South China. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective study included 1,408 women with LTP, with subgroups including a Bishop's score of 0-3 and 4-6. Rates of cesarean delivery were compared between women given vaginal dinoprostone and intravenous oxytocin for IOL. Secondary outcomes included the duration of labor, and maternal and fetal complications. RESULTS Comparison between women who received oxytocin (N=365) and dinoprostone (N=1,043) showed significantly lower rates of cesarean delivery with dinoprostone, but no significant difference between the subgroups with Bishop's scores of 0-3 and 4-6. The interval between induction to labor and duration of the active phase of labor were significantly reduced in the dinoprostone group with a Bishop's score of between 4-6. CONCLUSIONS For LTPs with a Bishop's score of 0-3, dinoprostone was superior to oxytocin for IOL with a lower rate of cesarean delivery, but both agents had a similar outcome for women with a Bishop's score of 4-6. These findings may have implications for the choice of agent used in IOL when dinoprostone is unavailable.

Indexed as

AdultCesarean SectionChinaDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedLabor, ObstetricOxytocicsOxytocinPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, ThirdRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultDinoprostoneOxytocicsOxytocin

Identifiers

PMID31719513
PMCPMC6873645
OpenAlexW2988939142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.