ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Double balloon catheter induction of labor in pregnant women with COVID-19 infection.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo identify the effectiveness and safety induction using a double-balloon catheter in the setting of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.
methodsThis retrospective study included 577 COVID-19-afected women who underwent induction of labor with a double balloon catheter or spontaneously started delivery between December 7, 2022, and June 20, 2023; 154 women underwent induction of labor (double balloon catheter, study group) and 423 women underwent spontaneous started delivery (control group). Maternal and neonatal outcomes and complications during labor were assessed and compared.
resultsDuration of the first stage of labor and total labor in the study group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of maternal delivery complications (P > 0.05). The two groups did differ significantly in the occurrences of pregnancy induced hypertension and gestational diabetes mellitus (P < 0.05). The neonatal prognosis was similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). After adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, gestational age at delivery, gestational age at infection, gravidity, parity, oxytocin administration and failure of progress of labor, multivariate logistic regression analysis found that COVID-19-afected women who received the double balloon catheter were not associated with an increased risk of fetal distress, intrapartum fever and cesarean section (P > 0.05).
conclusionsDouble balloon catheter is an effective and safe method for labor induction in pregnant women with COVID-19 and is not associated with an increased risk of fetal distress, intrapartum fever and cesarean section.
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.