Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39349375›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Cook's balloon versus dinoprostone for Labour induction of term pregnancies with fetal GROWth restriction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in tertiary maternity hospitals in Spain (COLIGROW study).

Ignacio Herraiz, Eva Meler, Edurne Mazarico, Erika Bonacina, Jose Eliseo Blanco, Cecilia Villalain, Patricia Barbero, Anna Peguero, Águeda Barberá, María Luisa Sánchez and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05774236 (Cook´s Balloon Versus Dinoprostone for Labor Induction of Term Pregnancies With Fetal Growth Restriction), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05774236 phase3completednot on this map

Cook´s Balloon Versus Dinoprostone for Labor Induction of Term Pregnancies With Fetal Growth Restriction (COLIGROW)

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Universitario 12 de OctubreRan2023 to 2025Enrolled172ConditionsFetal Growth RetardationArmsCook´s balloon, Vaginal dinoprostone
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Ignacio HerraizDepartamento de Salud Pública y Materno-infantil, Complutense University of Madrid, Faculty of Medicine, Madrid, Spain ignacio.herraiz@salud.madrid.org.ORCID 0000-0001-6807-4944
Eva MelerInstitute of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Neonatology, Clinic Barcelona Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Edurne MazaricoIDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0069-7640
Erika BonacinaVall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Jose Eliseo BlancoObstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, El Palmar, Murcia, Spain.
Cecilia VillalainDepartamento de Salud Pública y Materno-infantil, Complutense University of Madrid, Faculty of Medicine, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9456-4100
Patricia BarberoInstituto de Investigacion Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.
Anna PegueroInstitute of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Neonatology, Clinic Barcelona Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Águeda BarberáIDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
María Luisa SánchezObstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, El Palmar, Murcia, Spain.
Irene Llorente MuñozSCREN, Fundacion para la Investigacion Biomedica del Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4664-8609
David Lora PablosSCREN, Fundacion para la Investigacion Biomedica del Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
Francesc FiguerasInstitute of Gynaecology Obstetrics and Neonatology, Clinic Barcelona Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4403-1274
Alberto GalindoDepartamento de Salud Pública y Materno-infantil, Complutense University of Madrid, Faculty of Medicine, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFetal growth restriction (FGR) affects about 3%-5% of term pregnancies. If prenatally detected and anterograde umbilical artery flow is preserved (stage I), it is recommended to deliver at term (≥ 37+0 weeks). In the absence of contraindications, the vaginal route is preferred, and labour induction is usually required. It has been postulated that mechanical methods for cervical ripening may have an optimal profile for the induction of term FGR fetuses since they are associated with less uterine stimulation than the standard pharmacological methods, and therefore, could be better tolerated by fetuses with reduced placental reserve. This study aims to evaluate whether cervical ripening with a Cook's balloon for the induction of labour from 37+0 weeks of gestation in the stage I FGR manages to increase the rate of vaginal delivery compared with vaginal dinoprostone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be an open-labelled, randomised, parallel-group clinical trial to be held in five Spanish maternities. Women aged ≥18 years with singleton pregnancies complicated with stage I FGR (defined as the presence of at least one of these two criteria: (1) estimated fetal weight (EFW) <3rd percentile; (2) EFW <10th percentile and at least one of the following: (2.1.) umbilical artery pulsatility index >95th percentile and presence of antegrade end-diastolic flow or (2.2.) Cerebroplacental ratio <5th percentile), gestational age dated by first-trimester ultrasound ≥37+0 weeks at the time of labour induction, cephalic presentation, unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <7), intact fetal membranes, no previous caesarean section and no maternal or fetal contraindications for vaginal delivery or labour induction will be 1:1 randomised by centre to labour induction with Cook's balloon (experimental arm) or dinoprostone (control arm). FGR cases with evidence of non-placental origin (major structural fetal malformations, chromosomal anomalies or congenital infection) will be excluded. The primary outcome is the achievement of a vaginal delivery and it will be assessed by comparing the rates of vaginal delivery in each group using the one-sided χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was registered in the European Union drug regulating authorities' clinical trials database (EUDRACT) (2021-001726-22) and received approval from the local Research Ethics Committee (21/728) and the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). AEMPS classified the study as a low-intervention trial. The study will be conducted in compliance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice. The study results will be disseminated through workshops and national/international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, they will be disclosed to patients and the public in understandable language through study newsletters and press releases to news and social media. PROTOCOL VERSION: V.1.1, 18 May 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EUDRACT 2021-001726-22 and NCT05774236.

Indexed as

DinoprostoneFetal Growth RetardationLabor, InducedOxytocicsAdultCervical RipeningDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHospitals, MaternityHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpainTertiary Care CentersDinoprostoneOxytocicsMaternal medicinePERINATOLOGYPregnant Women

Identifiers

PMID39349375
PMCPMC11448219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.