SynthesisJournal of midwifery & women's health
A Comparison of Synthetic Osmotic Dilators and Pharmacologic Agents for Cervical Ripening in Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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.
- Impact of Different Decision-to-Delivery Intervals on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Women with a Positive Oxytocin Challenge Test: A Comparison of 75- versus 90-minute Thresholds.International journal of women's health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the rising number of studies on synthetic osmotic dilators, there is a lack of comprehensive reviews for their use compared with other commonly used cervical ripening methods. This study aimed to examine the maternal and neonatal safety and efficacy in cervical ripening and labor induction using synthetic osmotic dilators compared with pharmacologic agents (prostaglandin E
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was conducted, using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases search. Two reviewers independently screened studies and assessed the risk of bias with Risk of Bias 2 and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tools. Relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated with 95% CIs.
resultsEleven studies (8 RCTs, 3 cohort; 2355 participants) showed no statistically significant differences in safety outcomes between synthetic osmotic dilators and pharmacologic agents, including maternal infection (RR, 1.27), postpartum bleeding (RR, 0.87), neonatal infection (RR, 1.19), low Apgar scores (RR, 0.74), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR, 1.06) (all P > .05). Efficacy outcomes were comparable for vaginal birth rates (RR, 0.98) and Bishop score changes (MD, 0.0) (both P > .05). Synthetic osmotic dilators reduced uterine hyperstimulation (RR, 0.45) and digestive symptoms (RR, 0.15) but required more artificial rupture of membrane (RR, 1.57) (all P < .05). DISCUSSION: Synthetic osmotic dilators are a safe, effective, and viable option for labor induction, reducing maternal risks of uterine hyperstimulation. These findings have implications for incorporating the clinical use of synthetic osmotic dilators for cervical ripening into international guidelines. As evidence supports their efficacy and safety, educating nurses and midwives in the use of synthetic osmotic dilators for labor induction is required.
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.