ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Intracervical Foley's Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor.
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, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Balloon catheter plus concurrent vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening in induction of labor: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- Data-sharing and trustworthiness of trials evaluating cervical ripening in induction of labour: a meta-epidemiological study of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Outpatient Versus Inpatient Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Induction of labor implies stimulation of contractions before the spontaneous onset of labor, with or without membranes. Augmentation refers to the enhancement of spontaneous contractions that are considered inadequate because of failed cervical and fetal descent. This study compared the effectiveness of intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol versus only vaginal misoprostol in the induction of labor and other outcomes relted to it. Methods The present study was a randomized controlled trial that included 148 women divided into two groups: (i) Group A, which received intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol (25 µg), and (ii) Group B, which received intravaginal administration of tablet misoprostol (25 µg) alone. We compared the median time from the time of induction to vaginal delivery, incidence of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, puerperal infection, uterine tachysystole, neonatal information at delivery, and discharge status (i.e., birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and neonatal death) between groups. Results We found that the rates of puerperal infection (n=36; 48.6%) and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (n=45; 60.8%) were higher in Group B than in Group A (n=20; 27.0% and n=25; 33.8%, respectively), which were statistically significant differences (p=0.0066 and p=0.0009, respectively). In addition, NICU admission was higher in Group B (n=47; 63.5%) than in Group A (n=30; 40.5%), which was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0051). Conclusion An intracervical Foley catheter with 25 µg of misoprostol was more effective for induction of labor than 25 µg of intravaginal misoprostol alone every six hours for a maximum of four doses in terms of induction to delivery interval, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, mode of delivery, intrapartum complications, and puerperal infection.
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.