ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Comparing the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone vaginal insert and double-balloon catheter as cervical ripening treatments in Chinese patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Double balloon catheter induction of labor in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effect of cervical Bishop score on induction of labor at term in primiparas using Foley catheter balloon: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone vaginal insert vs. double-balloon catheter as cervical ripening agents for labor induction. Methods: Pregnant women with Bishop score <7, who received either Dinoprostone vaginal insert 10 mg or Cook's double-balloon catheter for labor induction, were studied. The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal delivery within 48 h; the secondary outcomes were the proportion of women undergoing cesarean section, labor duration, oxytocin administration, changes in Bishop score, complications during labor, and maternal/neonatal outcomes. Results: One hundred and eighty-two women were included in Dinoprostone group, and 199 women were in double-balloon catheter group. The rate of vaginal delivery within 48 h was significantly higher in Dinoprostone group than that in double-balloon catheter group (90.11% vs. 75.38%, Conclusion: Dinoprostone vaginal insert as cervical ripening agent is more effective for labor induction and with lower risks of chorioamnionitis as compared with double balloon catheter in Chinese populations.
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.