Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Conventional versus modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon (CCRB) for induction of labor (IOL) at term in primipara.
methodsA total of 227 singleton full-term pregnancies with indications of IOL were enrolled and randomly divided into the control and study groups in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2021. In the control group, a conventional method was used. Both the uterine and vaginal balloons were filled to 80 mL and removed after 12 h. In the study group, a modified method was used. The uterine and vaginal balloons were filled to 120 mL and 40 mL respectively. Light traction was given to help CCRB to be discharged after 12 h placement. Oxytocin was administered in both groups after CCRB was discharged before labor starting. The improved Bishop scores, duration of labor, and spontaneous delivery rate were evaluated in the two groups.
resultsThe improved Bishop scores in the study group were 3.06 ± 0.97 at 12 h placement of CCRB and 4.37 ± 0.87 when CCRB was discharged, which were significantly higher compared to the control group (2.52 ± 0.79, p < 0.05). Duration of the first stage of labor and the full labor in the study group were significantly shorter than those in the control group ((6.17 ± 2.85) h vs. (7.27 ± 2.90) h, p = 0.010; (7.07 ± 3.18) h vs. (8.09 ± 3.11) h, p = 0.028). No difference in spontaneous delivery rate between the two groups was observed. But the delivery rate within 24 h between the two groups was significantly different (79.79% vs. 55.91%, p < 0.05). For the cases with initial Bishop scores ≤ 3, the improved score was significantly increased, the first stage of labor and the full labor were significantly shorter in the study group than those in the control group (p < 0.05). Those results were not observed in cases with initial Bishop scores of 4-6.
conclusionsThe modified application of CCRB could benefit cervical ripening, shorten the duration of labor, especially for cases with poor cervical maturity, and improve the delivery rate within 24 h.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered: ChiCTR2200058270. Registered 04/04/2022.
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.