Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33571294›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2021

Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP randomised controlled trial.

Caroline Diguisto, Amélie Le Gouge, Chloé Arthuis, Norbert Winer, Olivier Parant, Christophe Poncelet, Celine Chauleur, Jacob Hannigsberg, Guillaume Ducarme, Denis Gallot and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT02907060 phase3completednot on this map

Propess® Versus Double Balloon for Cervical Ripening of Prolonged Pregnancies: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, ToursRan2017 to 2018Enrolled1,224ConditionsProlonged PregnancyArmsMechanical cervical ripening, Pharmacological cervical ripening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

19 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline DiguistoPôle de gynécologie obstétrique, médecine fœtale, médecine et biologie de la reproduction, centre Olympe de Gouges, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1176-0991
Amélie Le GougeINSERM CIC1415, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.
Chloé ArthuisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Nantes, NUN, INRAE, UMR 1280, PhAN, Université de Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7937-3648
Norbert WinerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Nantes, NUN, INRAE, UMR 1280, PhAN, Université de Nantes, France.
Olivier ParantPôle de gynécologie obstétrique, hôpital Paule-de-Viguier, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2585-1349
Christophe PonceletDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rene DUBOS Hospital, Cergy-Pontoise, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7630-8496
Celine ChauleurDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.
Jacob HannigsbergCHU Brest, Hôpital Morvan, service de gynécologie-obstétrique, Brest, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5893-5541
Guillaume DucarmeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre Hospitalier Departemental, La Roche sur Yon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2549-353X
Denis GallotPôle femme et enfant, CHU Estaing, 1, place Lucie-et-Raymond-Aubrac, Clermont-Ferrand, France, Team Translational approach to epithelial injury and repair, UMR6293 CNRS-Université Clermont Auvergne, U1103 Inserm, GReD, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2182-4781
Rene GabrielService de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Hôpital Maison Blanche, Reims Cedex, Université de Reims Champagne Ardennes, France.
Raoul DesbriereHôpital Saint Joseph, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7783-1943
Gael BeucherService de gynécologie obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Cyrille FaraguetService de Gynécologie Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier de Chartre, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3972-982X
Helene IslyService de Gynécologie Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes, France.
Patrick RozenbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Poissy-Saint Germain Hospital, Poissy, France.
Bruno GiraudeauUniversité de Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3031-8258
Franck PerrotinPôle de gynécologie obstétrique, médecine fœtale, médecine et biologie de la reproduction, centre Olympe de Gouges, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9694-6658
Groupe de Recherche en Obstétrique et Gynécologie (GROG)
Université de Tours · FRInserm · FRInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRHôpital Saint Joseph · FRLes Hôpitaux de Chartres · FRRoche (France) · FRUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultCervical RipeningCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedOxytocicsPessariesPregnancyPregnancy, ProlongedSiliconesDinoprostoneOxytocicsSilicones

Identifiers

PMID33571294
PMCPMC7877637
OpenAlexW3129161216

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.