Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32821419›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F).

Amarnath Bhide, Philip Sedgwick, Barbara Barrett, Georgina Cupples, Rose Coates, Rosie Goode, Sandra Linton, Christine McCourt

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03199820 (Prostaglandin Insert), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

NCT03199820 phase4unknown statusnot on this map

Prostaglandin Insert (Propess) Versus Trans-cervical Balloon Catheter for Out-patient Labour Induction: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Feasibility

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt George's, University of LondonRan2017 to 2019Enrolled120ConditionsChildbirth Problems, Labor ComplicationArmsCook cervical balloon, Prostin E2 Vaginal Suppository
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Review
  8. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amarnath BhideFetal Medicine Unit, St. George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2393-7501
Philip SedgwickSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Barbara BarrettKing's Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK.
Georgina CupplesFetal Medicine Unit, St. George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT UK.
Rose CoatesCity, University of London, London, UK.
Rosie GoodeMaternity Voices Partnership Chair, St. George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sandra LintonFetal Medicine Unit, St. George's University Hospital Foundation Trust, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT UK.
Christine McCourtCity, University of London, London, UK.
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCity, University of London · GBSt George's, University of London · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0815-20022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of induction of labour comparing use of two methods in the outpatient setting.

methodsAn open-label feasibility RCT was conducted in two UK maternity units from October 2017 to March 2019. Women aged ≥ 16 years, undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at term, with intact membranes and deemed suitable for outpatient IOL according to local guidelines were considered eligible. They were randomised to cervical ripening balloon catheter (CRB) or vaginal dinoprostone (Propess). The participants completed a questionnaire and a sub-group underwent detailed interview. Service use and cost data were collected via the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS). Women who declined to participate were requested to complete a decliners' questionnaire.

resultsDuring the study period, 274 eligible women were identified. Two hundred thirty (83.9%) were approached for participation of whom 84/230 (36.5%) agreed and 146 did not. Of these, 38 were randomised to Propess (

conclusionsA third of the approached eligible women agreed for randomisation. An RCT is not feasible in the current service context. Modifications to the eligibility criteria for outpatient IOL, better information provision and round the clock availability of research staff would be needed to reach sufficient numbers.

trial registrationNCT03199820. Registered on June 27, 2017.

Indexed as

Cervical ripeningCook cervical ripening balloonfeasibilityLabour, inducedOutpatientsRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32821419
PMCPMC7429688
OpenAlexW3048984228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.