ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Timing of Prostin E2 Administration After Poor Response to Propess: Impact on Induction-to-Birth Interval and Maternal/Neonatal Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Predictive Factors for the Success of Vaginal Dinoprostone for the Induction of Labour.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- The Association between Cervical Length and Successful Labor Induction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6), no signs of labor, and use of one form of dinoprostone (Prostin E2 or Propess) for IOL. The cesarean section (C/S) rate and induction-to-birth interval were the main outcome measures. In total, 120 women were recruited. Sixty (50%) patients received Propess and 60 (50%) received repeated doses of Prostin E2. The Prostin E2 and Propess groups had similar patient characteristics, but the Bishop score was significantly higher in the Propess group than in the Prostin E2 group; therefore, multivariate analysis was conducted, and the Bishop score was not associated with the induction-to-birth interval. The C/S rate was not significantly different between the two groups, but the Propess group achieved a shorter induction-to-birth interval, a higher rate of vaginal delivery in 24 h, and a lower number of vaginal examinations than the Prostin E2 group. Propess was effective and safe in IOL and could be an option for cervical ripening in nulliparous pregnancy.
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.