ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Labour Induction Methods: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Labour induction is a common obstetric intervention, most often undertaken at term in women with an unfavourable cervix, and its rising global use underscores the need to identify optimal strategies that balance effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological, mechanical, and combined methods of induction in term pregnancies, including both nulliparous and multiparous women undergoing elective or indicated induction. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Ten RCTs were included and assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A narrative synthesis was performed due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Across 10 RCTs (n=8,683 participants), oral misoprostol and Foley catheter demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety for cervical ripening and induction. Combination methods (e.g., misoprostol plus Foley catheter) significantly shortened induction-to-delivery intervals and increased the likelihood of vaginal birth within 24 hours compared with single methods. Safety outcomes were generally favourable, although higher rates of infectious morbidity were reported with mechanical methods in women with prelabour rupture of membranes. Cost analyses indicated that misoprostol and Foley catheter incur similar inpatient costs, while outpatient Foley catheter ripening provides substantial savings. Additionally, induction at 41 weeks was more cost-effective than expectant management until 42 weeks, particularly for nulliparous women. The evidence suggests that oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective first-line options, while combination methods and outpatient strategies may optimize outcomes depending on parity, cervical status, and healthcare setting.
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.