ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2020
Comparing the effects of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and extra amniotic saline infusion on cervical ripening and induction of labor.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the effects of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and extra-amniotic saline infusion (EASI) on cervical ripening.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted on 195 women with singleton pregnancies and unripe cervices. Participants were randomly allocated to 3, 65-person groups: a misoprostol, a laminaria, and an EASI group. The interventions in the misoprostol, laminaria, and EASI groups included a single 25-µg vaginal misoprostol suppository, an intracervical laminaria, and a transcervical Foley catheter, respectively. The groups were compared with each other regarding time intervals from labor induction to labor active phase and delivery, cervical dilation, Bishop scores 6 hours after induction, delivery type, length of hospital stay, and complications.
resultsThere were no significant differences among the groups regarding maternal ages, gestational ages, body mass indices, baseline cervical dilations, and Bishop scores (
conclusionEASI is a safer and more effective method for cervical ripening. Considering its inexpensiveness, easy accessibility, and greater effectiveness, EASI is recommended for cervical ripening.
trial registrationIranian Center for Clinical Trials Identifier: IRCT20170513033941N39.
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.