Trial reportActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Comparison of balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in women with pre-labor rupture of membranes: A Finnish randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in women with pre-labor rupture of membranes: A Finnish randomized controlled trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Labour Induction Methods: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in about 8% of term pregnancies with over 70% delivering spontaneously within 24 h. However, prolonged PROM increases the risk of chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. While misoprostol and oxytocin are considered safe and effective methods of labor induction, most guidelines do not encourage balloon catheter (BC) use following PROM given concerns about increased risk of chorioamnionitis. However, lack of robust evidence exists. This study aimed to compare BC and low-dose oral misoprostol (OM) regarding infectious morbidity and assess the impact of routine antibiotic prophylaxis during BC use on infection prevention. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized controlled trial comparing BC and low-dose 25 μg OM for pre-induction cervical ripening in an inpatient setting and assessing the preventive effect of prophylactic antibiotics during BC use in 175 women with PROM was carried out between 1.2.2021 and 31.12.2023 in Helsinki University Hospital. The study protocol was registered in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN10972090). The primary outcome measures of the study were the mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal infections.
resultsEighty-nine women (50.9%) were allocated in the BC arm and 86 women (49.1%) in the OM arm. The cesarean delivery rates were comparable (BC 19.1% [n = 17] vs. OM 11.6% [n = 10]; p = 0.17). The rate of chorioamnionitis (BC 9.1% [n = 8] vs. OM 3.5% [n = 3]; p = 0.21) or neonatal infection (BC 4.5% [n = 4] vs. OM 2.3% [n = 2]; p = 0.68) were not statistically significantly different between the groups, although there was a trend towards higher frequency of infections in the BC arm. There were no differences in the incidence of chorioamnionitis or neonatal infections when routine antibiotic prophylaxis was administered during the BC use compared to those who did not receive antibiotics (chorioamnionitis 10.9% with antibiotics vs. 8.0% without antibiotics; p = 0.68, and neonatal infection 5.3% vs. 3.9%; p = 1.00). Maternal childbirth satisfaction was similar in the BC and OM groups.
conclusionsOur results showed almost threefold frequency of chorioamnionitis and twofold frequency of neonatal infections following the use of BC compared to OM, although the study was underpowered for reaching statistical significance. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during BC retention did not reduce the incidence of infections.
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.