ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Clinical comparison of vaginal misoprostol combined with a foley balloon versus vaginal misoprostol alone for inducing labor: a prospective cohort study.
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. 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.
- Maternal and Fetal Outcomes of Contemporary Obstetric Interventions: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of misoprostol and a Cook cervical ripening double-balloon catheter, alone and in combination, for cervical ripening and induction of labor.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the induction-to-delivery time and maternal satisfaction associated with vaginal misoprostol combined with a Foley balloon to those associated with vaginal misoprostol alone for labor induction.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study involving singleton full-term pregnant women with fetuses who were observed in the cephalic position; these patients were divided into a combination group (25 µg vaginal misoprostol combined with a Foley balloon, n = 94) and a misoprostol group (25 µg vaginal misoprostol, n = 105). The primary outcome was the induction-to-delivery time, and the secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction, mode of delivery and neonatal conditions.
resultsThe induction-to-delivery time was significantly lower in the combination group than in the misoprostol group (13.91 [10.85-21.48] hours vs. 17.8 [12.63-26.63] hours, respectively; P = 0.016), and this difference was still observed in analyses including only those women with vaginal births (13.40 [10.65-20.47] hours vs. 18.49 [12.91-27.00] hours, respectively; P = 0.001). Stratified analysis revealed that this benefit was particularly significant among nulliparous women. The questionnaire survey revealed similar levels of maternal satisfaction with birth experience between the combination group and the misoprostol group (69.9% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.627) but a higher rate of pain during labor induction in the combination group (16% vs. 5.8%, P = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in neonatal conditions, satisfaction rates regarding the duration of labor induction and the frequency and intensity of contractions between the groups.
conclusionVaginal misoprostol combined with a Foley balloon effectively shortens the induction-to-delivery time but induces more severe pain during labor induction, thus providing overall satisfaction comparable to that of vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. An optimal scheme for labor induction should be determined according to expectations regarding the induction-to-delivery time, and the personal feelings of the pregnant women.
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.