ArticleCureus2026
Effects and Pain Levels in Nulliparous Pregnant Women Undergoing Cervical Ripening With the Controlled-Release Dinoprostone Vaginal Delivery System (PROPESS) Compared With Mechanical Methods.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
Objective We compared the effects of controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland) use on cervical ripening and on pain levels, compared with mechanical methods. Methods The criteria for inclusion in this study were as follows: nulliparity, singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, gestational age of 41 weeks, and a Bishop score at the start of induction equal to or less than 4. During the study period, 25 women used PROPESS, and 25 women used mechanical methods for cervical ripening at 41 weeks of gestation. After the selected insertion methods were completed, the patients were asked about their pain levels during the insertion, with the pain scored on a 10-point numerical pain-rating scale (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS). Successful cervical ripening was defined as a Bishop score >6 at removal, or if the patient delivered vaginally by the next day following insertion of PROPESS only or mechanical cervical dilation only. Results There were no significant differences in the rate of unsuccessful cervical ripening cases between the two groups; however, the average NRS score at PROPESS insertion was significantly lower than that during mechanical methods. Conclusions The cervical ripening effect of PROPESS was not significantly different from that of mechanical methods in women requiring cervical ripening. PROPESS also had the potential benefit of being pain-free during cervical ripening.
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.