ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
A comparative analysis of methods of preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in Poland and in Germany (Part II): maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefits and risks of delivery should always be considered before initiating preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Understanding the benefits and potential complications is crucial for healthcare professionals to make informed decisions and provide optimal care. The research was conducted retrospectively between January 2019 and July 2022. It involved the analysis of the medical records of 154 pregnant women staying in the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the city of Szczecin and 150 pregnant women hospitalized in the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the town of Schwedt/Oder in Germany. Inclusion criteria were consent to participate and the implementation of internal written protocols in line with national guidelines for labor induction. The research concerned a group of pregnant women with postdate pregnancy, calculated according to the Naegele's rule and confirmed by the USG examination conducted in the first trimester of the pregnancy, as well as an unfavorable cervix that received less than 6 points in the Bishop score. Moreover, the pregnant patients with a low biophysical profile and an abnormal record of CTG or comorbidities were also included, as these factors determined the classification of the group above. The study did not include patients who had undergone cesarean section. The average change in evaluation of the cervix marked on the Bishop Score was higher in Germany, and it was 2.7 points, whereas in Poland, it was 1.6 points. The largest percentage of the scores on the Apgar Scale in the first, third and fifth minutes after birth was in the norm and indicated a good health condition of infants. They reached 8 to 10 points in both countries. Significantly more infants in Germany received pH from the umbilical cord within the limits of the norm. And it marks the welfare of neonates (7.20-7.45). The duration of hospitalization in Poland was shorter than in Germany. It was 3.8 days in the case when the median equalled 3. The number of days of preinduction cervical ripening and induction was similar in both countries. The levels of haemoglobin were comparable in both countries. The most common postpartum complications in Poland and Germany were first-degree perineal tears, episiotomies and anemia. Among the postpartum complications, cervical tears, revision of the uterine cavity, and episiotomy were significantly more common in Poland. First- and second-degree perineal tears were more frequent in Germany.
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.