Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162016›Full record

ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2021

Dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI) versus adjunctive sweeping of membranes and DVI for term induction of labor.

Anju Bhatia, Puay Ling Teo, Mingyue Li, Jia Ying Beatrice Lee, Mei Xin Joanne Chan, Tai Wai Yeo, Manisha Mathur, Shephali Tagore, George S H Yeo, Sabaratnam Arulkumaran

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anju BhatiaDepartment of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Puay Ling TeoDivision of Nursing, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Mingyue LiDivision of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jia Ying Beatrice LeeDepartment of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Mei Xin Joanne ChanDepartment of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Tai Wai YeoDivision of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Manisha MathurDivision of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Shephali TagoreDepartment of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
George S H YeoDepartment of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Sabaratnam ArulkumaranDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, St George's University of London, London, UK.
KK Women's and Children's Hospital · SGSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

Ferring
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI) alone versus DVI with adjunctive sweeping of membranes (ASM) for induction of labor (IOL).

methodsSingle-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial; women with singleton term pregnancies, cervical dilation ≥1 and <3 cm, intact membranes allocated to either DVI or DVI with ASM. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 h of insertion. Secondary outcomes included mean time from insertion to delivery, tachysystole, operative delivery for non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS), tocolytics, fetal outcomes, pain information, and subject satisfaction.

resultsOne hundred and four received DVI (Group 1) alone and 104 DVI with ASM (Group 2). The rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h was 53% versus 56%, cesarean rate 8.7% versus 10.6% in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. Although the duration of labor was similar in both groups, about 6% of women required additional ripening with dinoprostone vaginal tablets in Group 2 compared to 11.5% in Group 1 (p-value = 0.2). The frequency of hyperstimulation syndrome, failed induction, analgesic requirements, and fetal outcomes were comparable. The majority (83%-86%) in either cohort were satisfied with their labor experience. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated a slightly better chance for vaginal delivery within 24 h (odds ratio [OR] 1.22 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.65-2.29]; p-value 0.53] for DVI with ASM, although statistically insignificant. Younger maternal age and multiparity (OR 10.36 [95% CI 4.88-23.67]; p-value <0.0001) contributed to successful IOL.

conclusionDVI with ASM is at least as efficacious as DVI for cervical ripening with no increase in morbidity. Although DVI with ASM group less often needed additional dinoprostone tablets to complete the process of IOL (p-value = 0.2), adjunctive sweeping has not been shown to have a significant impact on the duration of labor or mode of delivery.

Indexed as

MisoprostolOxytocicsAdministration, IntravaginalCervical RipeningDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyProspective StudiesDinoprostoneMisoprostolOxytocicscervical ripeningdinoprostone vaginal inserthyperstimulationlabor inductionpatient comfortvaginal delivery

Identifiers

PMID34162016
PMCPMC8453915
OpenAlexW3175154929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.