ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Obstetric Outcomes Between Controlled-Release Dinoprostone Vaginal Delivery System (PROPESS) and Administration of Oral Dinoprostone for Labor Induction in Multiparous Women at Term.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of epidural analgesia on cervical ripening using dinoprostone vaginal inserts.Journal of anesthesia · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the rate of vaginal delivery and adverse outcomes of a controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) and the administration of oral dinoprostone for labor induction in multiparous women at term.
methodsThis retrospective case-controlled study included 92 multiparous pregnant women (46 and 46 in the PROPESS and oral dinoprostone groups, respectively) who required labor induction at ≥37 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the success rate of vaginal delivery following the insertion of PROPESS only or the administration of oral dinoprostone (up to six tablets) only. The secondary outcomes were uterine tachysystole with non-reassuring fetal status, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin, and the rate of cesarean delivery.
resultsThe proportion of pregnant women who delivered vaginally as the primary outcome was significantly higher in the PROPESS group (33/46 [72%]) than in the oral dinoprostone group (16/46 [35%], p < 0.01). In the secondary outcomes, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin in the PROPESS group was significantly lower than that in the oral dinoprostone group (24% vs. 57%, p < 0.01).
conclusionsIn multiparous women at term, PROPESS may be able to induce labor and lead to a higher vaginal delivery rate without adverse outcomes compared to oral dinoprostone.
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.