ArticleCureus2025
Obstetric Use of Prostaglandin Preparations Compared to Mechanical Methods for Cervical Ripening in Pregnancies With Premature Rupture of Membranes at Term.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background We examined the difference in obstetric outcomes between the cases using dinoprostone and those using mechanical methods in pregnant women requiring cervical ripening following premature rupture of the membranes (PROMs) at term. Methodology During the study period, dinoprostone was used in 34 nulliparous women, while mechanical methods were used in 35 nulliparous women for cervical ripening following PROM at term. We examined the differences in the delivery outcomes between the two groups. Results On the day of induction start, 2 cases (6%) in the dinoprostone group were delivered by cesarean section due to non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS), while no cases were complicated by NRFS in the mechanical methods group (
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.