ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using double-balloon catheter placement within 12 h versus within 12-24 h.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional versus modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Trial
- Double balloon catheter induction of labor in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Failure of Second-Trimester Termination with Misoprostol as a Single Agent.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Induction of Labour with a Double Balloon Catheter - Comparison of Effectiveness of Six Versus Twelve Hours Insertion Time: a Prospective Case Control Study.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using a double-balloon catheter (DBC) within 12 h versus within 12-24 h.
methodsIn this retrospective study, a total of 58 pregnant women at 14 + 0 weeks to 27 + 6 weeks of gestation were enrolled as research subjects, and they underwent the intended termination of pregnancy at our birth centre from January 1, 2017, to June 31, 2019. Based on the duration of DBC, the patients were divided into two groups, namely, the DBC group within 12 h and the DBC group within 12-24 h.
resultsAll 58 cases were successful vaginal deliveries, and no one chose to undergo caesarean section. The success rate of induction (successful abortion of the foetus and placenta without the implementation of dilation and evacuation) was higher in the DBC group within 12-24 h (96.3%, 29/31) than in the DBC group within 12 h (71.0%, 18/27) (p < 0.05). Additionally, the time from DBC removal to delivery in the DBC group within 12-24 h was significantly shorter than that in the DBC group within 12 h (3.0 h versus 17.8 h) (p < 0.05), and the degree of cervical dilation after DBC removal in the DBC group within 12-24 h was larger than that in the DBC group within 12 h (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn the clinic, the placement time of DBC generally lasts for approximately 12 h. However, considering that the cervical condition is immature in the mid-trimester, properly extending the placement time of DBC to 24 h will benefit cervical ripening and reduce the chance of dilation and evacuation.
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.