ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Use of vaginal dinoprostone for women with term prelabor rupture of membranes and an unfavorable cervix within 6 h versus within 6-24 h.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Induction of Labour with the Propess Vaginal System to the Prostin Vaginal Tablet in Premature Rupture of Membranes at Term.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect and safety of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women with PROM who undergo induction of labor (IoL). Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study conducted at La Mancha Centro hospital from 1 February 2019, to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal variables of 94 pregnant women with PROM who underwent IoL with vaginal dinoprostone were analyzed, and the results were compared with 330 patients without PROM who also underwent IoL. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using binary and multiple linear regression. Results: A total of 424 women were included in this study. A greater response to cervical ripening (Bishop score > 6) with PGE2 was observed in the PROM group (odds ratio (OR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50−4.99, p = 0.001), as well as a shorter total duration of IoL (mean difference (MD) 2823.37 min (min), 95% CI 1257.30−4389.43, p < 0.001). Cesarean sections were performed in 28.7% (n = 27) of patients in the PROM group vs. 34.2% (n = 113) of patients in the non-PROM group, with no significant differences (OR 0.87%, 95% CI 0.47−1.60, p = 0.652). There were no significant differences in changes in the cardiotocographic record (CTG), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), uterine rupture, or adverse neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: The use of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women undergoing IoL with PROM is safe for the mother and the fetus, shortens the total delivery time, and does not increase the risk of cesarean section compared with pregnant women undergoing IoL without PROM.
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.