Trial reportPLoS medicine2021
Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02907060 (Propess® Versus Double Balloon for Cervical Ripening of Prolonged Pregnancies), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Propess® Versus Double Balloon for Cervical Ripening of Prolonged Pregnancies: a Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Induction of Labor in Late-Term and Post-Term Pregnancies Using Double-Balloon Catheter for Cervical Ripening: Predictors of Prolonged Labor Across Four Combined Augmentation Protocols in a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Double-Balloon Catheter Alone or Combined with Oxytocin, Dinoprostone, or Misoprostol for Labor Induction in Late- and Post-Term Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Double balloon catheter induction of labor in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of the Double Intracervical Balloon vs Dinoprostone in Patients with Previous Cesarean Section.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Observational
- Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Predictive Factors for Successful Cervical Ripening among Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus at Term: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged pregnancies are a frequent indication for induction of labour. When the cervix is unfavourable, cervical ripening before oxytocin administration is recommended to increase the likelihood of vaginal delivery, but no particular method is currently recommended for cervical ripening of prolonged pregnancies. This trial evaluates whether the use of mechanical cervical ripening with a silicone double balloon catheter for induction of labour in prolonged pregnancies reduces the cesarean section rate for nonreassuring fetal status compared with pharmacological cervical ripening by a vaginal pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2). METHODS AND
findingsThis is a multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial conducted in 15 French maternity units. Women with singleton pregnancies, a vertex presentation, ≥41+0 and ≤42+0 weeks' gestation, a Bishop score <6, intact membranes, and no history of cesarean delivery for whom induction of labour was decided were randomised to either mechanical cervical ripening with a Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon or pharmacological cervical ripening by a Propess vaginal pessary serving as a prostaglandin E2 slow-release system. The primary outcome was the rate of cesarean for nonreassuring fetal status, with an independent endpoint adjudication committee determining whether the fetal heart rate was nonreassuring. Secondary outcomes included delivery (time from cervical ripening to delivery, number of patients requiring analgesics), maternal and neonatal outcomes. Between January 2017 and December 2018, 1,220 women were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, 610 allocated to a silicone double balloon catheter, and 610 to the Propess vaginal pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone. The mean age of women was 31 years old, and 80% of them were of white ethnicity. The cesarean rates for nonreassuring fetal status were 5.8% (35/607) in the mechanical ripening group and 5.3% (32/609) in the pharmacological ripening group (proportion difference: 0.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1% to 3.1%, p = 0.70). Time from cervical ripening to delivery was shorter in the pharmacological ripening group (23 hours versus 32 hours, median difference 6.5 95% CI 5.0 to 7.9, p < 0.001), and fewer women required analgesics in the mechanical ripening group (27.5% versus 35.4%, difference in proportion -7.9%, 95% CI -13.2% to -2.7%, p = 0.003). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for other delivery, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. A limitation was a low observed rate of cesarean section.
conclusionsIn this study, we observed no difference in the rates of cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status between mechanical ripening with a silicone double balloon catheter and pharmacological cervical ripening with a pessary for the slow release of dinoprostone.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02907060.
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.