Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41459420›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025

Significance of Bishop score in single vs. double balloon catheterization for induction in labor; a meta-analysis.

Ping Wang, Yan Hu, Tengfei Shan, Fei Fang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ping WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linping Campus, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Yan HuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linping Campus, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Tengfei ShanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linping Campus, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Fei FangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linping Campus, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing Bishop scores in newborns resulting from single balloon versus double balloon labor induction methods. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCT's that compared single and double balloon catheters for inducing labor. Relevant literature studies were located by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome measure was the Bishop score, while secondary outcomes included the mode of delivery, complications, time interval from catheter insertion to the delivery, and the Apgar score at five minutes. Results: Our meta-analysis encompassed 6 RCT involving 996 women who underwent labor induction. We detected a substantial variation in the Bishop scores, with SBC induction yielding higher scores. Specifically, neonates delivered using SBC had higher Bishop scores than those delivered using DBC. This highlights the clinical significance of Bishop scores in identifying infants who may require immediate medical attention. However, no significant differences were found in mode of delivery, complications, or Apgar scores between the two groups ( Conclusion: Labor induction using a single balloon catheter appears to be more effective at ripening the cervix, as indicated by higher Bishop scores. This suggests that it might be a more favorable method for inducing labor.

Indexed as

Bishop scoredouble balloon catheterlabor inductionneonatal outcomessingle balloon catheter

Identifiers

PMID41459420
PMCPMC12739753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.