Trial reportReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2023
Adjuvant Treatment with Oral Dydrogesterone in the Prevention of Preterm Labor: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of oral dydrogesterone compared to placebo in reducing the risk of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Article
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
We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of oral dydrogesterone (DG) on maternal and neonatal consequences in the treatment of preterm labor. We included 100 nulliparous mothers (24-34 weeks) with normal pregnancy who had preterm labor pain. Participants who received magnesium sulfate were randomly assigned to the investigation group (DG 30 mg/day) or placebo group. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. Recurrent uterine contraction (UC) rates (92% vs. 88%, P = 0.862) and the incidence of preterm delivery (66% vs. 58%, P = 0.834) were not different in the DG and placebo groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of gestational age at delivery (33.5 ± 3.5 vs. 34.2 ± 3.2, P = 0.281), latency period (5.53 ± 2.29 days vs. 5.59 ± 2.57 days, P = 0.622), cervical dilation (1.82 ± 0.26 cm vs. 1.84 ± 0.29 cm, P = 0.281), and effacement (53 ± 4.47% vs. 57.21 ± 6.27%, P = 0.622) between the placebo and DG groups. The percentage of neonates with a 1-min Apgar score < 7 was higher in the placebo group compared with that of the DG group (12% vs. 0%, P = 0.0001). However, both groups were similar in the frequency of a 5-min Apgar score < 7. No differences in the term of adverse effects of medications were recorded. Our results showed that DG adjuvant to magnesium sulfate could not be effective in improving the incidence of preterm labor, rate of recurrent UC, latency period, pregnancy outcomes, and maternal and neonatal outcomes when compared with the placebo group.
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.