Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704114›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023

Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study.

N Dupuis, L Loussert, P L M de Vries, O Parant, C Vayssière, P Guerby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Women satisfaction on choosing the cervical ripening method: Oral misoprostol versus balloon catheter.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

N DupuisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France.
L LoussertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France.
P L M de VriesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
O ParantDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France.
C VayssièreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France.
P GuerbyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternité Paule de Viguier, CHU Toulouse, 330 Av. de Grande Bretagne, 31059, Toulouse, France. guerby.p@chu-toulouse.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-2662-4351
Hôpital Paule de Viguier · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRLeiden University · NLUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate women's choice in the method of labour induction between oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and the Foley catheter. To compare women's satisfaction according to their choice and to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction.

methodsWe conducted a comparative, prospective cohort study of 520 women who chose their preferred method for labour induction, in a French tertiary hospital, from July 2019 to October 2020. Before and after the delivery, they were asked to argue their choice and to evaluate their satisfaction through the use of questionnaires. The primary outcome was global level of satisfaction.

resultsOf the 520 women included, 67.5% of women chose oral misoprostol compared to 21% PGE2 pessary and 11.5% Foley catheter. Regarding global satisfaction, we found no significant difference between the three groups: 78.4%, 68.8% and 71.2% (p = 0.107) for, respectively, oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and Foley catheter. Factors that seem to improve women's satisfaction were nulliparity (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.19-3.53]), delivery within 24 h after the start of induction (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI [2.02-6.14]) and adequate information (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI [1.869.64]). Factors associated with lower satisfaction rates were postpartum haemorrhage (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.30-0.88]) and caesarean section (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.17-0.54]).

conclusionWomen satisfaction rates were not different between the three methods, when chosen by the patients themselves. These finding should encourage caregivers to promote shared decision making when possible.

trial registrationThe protocol was approved by the French ethics committee for research in obstetrics and gynaecology (CEROG, reference number 2019-OBS-0602) on 1st June 2019.

Indexed as

MisoprostolOxytocicsCervical RipeningCesarean SectionDinoprostoneFemaleHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyProspective StudiesDinoprostoneMisoprostolOxytocicsChoiceFoley catheterInduction of labourMisoprostolPGE2 pessarySatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID35704114
OpenAlexW4282917292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.