Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41974543›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Methods of cervical ripening in induction of labour: an individual participant data network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (CIRCLE-NMA) study protocol.

Nicole Au, Malitha Patabendige, Sol Libesman, Rui Wang, Lyle C Gurrin, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li, CIRCLE-NMA Collaborative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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

8 authors.

Nicole AuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9093-0147
Malitha PatabendigeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4092-7092
Sol LibesmanNextGen Evidence Synthesis Team, Evidence Integration, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rui WangNextGen Evidence Synthesis Team, Evidence Integration, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6622-8134
Lyle C GurrinUniversity of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7052-1969
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health, Monash University Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia wt.li@unsw.edu.au ben.mol@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X
Wentao LiNational Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales Faculty of Medicine, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia wt.li@unsw.edu.au ben.mol@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8980-0909
CIRCLE-NMA Collaborative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInduction of labour (IOL) is a commonly performed obstetric intervention, particularly when delivery is deemed more beneficial than continuing the pregnancy due to maternal or fetal indications. When the cervix is unfavourable for delivery, cervical ripening is performed prior to IOL. A wide variety of mechanical, pharmacological and combination methods are used, but the optimal approach balancing efficacy, safety and patient experience remains uncertain. Conventional aggregate data (AD) meta-analyses lack individual-level data, limiting exploration of patient-level factors for personalised medicine and do not address concerns about the trustworthiness of data presented in peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This protocol describes an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) designed to evaluate and rank cervical ripening methods for IOL using only high quality, trustworthy data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify eligible parallel-group RCTs enrolling pregnant women with a singleton, cephalic fetus at ≥34 weeks' gestation requiring cervical ripening, through comprehensive searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Scopus, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, clinicaltrials.gov and reference lists of prior reviews. The interventions we consider will be selected via Delphi consensus with international clinical experts. Eligible trial investigators will be invited to contribute de-identified IPD; AD will be used if IPD is unavailable. Trials will be assessed for trustworthiness using the Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials checklist and the IPD Integrity Tool, with only eligible studies included in the primary analysis. All statistical analyses will follow a pre-specified statistical analysis plan (SAP) finalised before any analyses are conducted. A two-stage, contrast-based, frequentist IPD-NMA will compare cervical ripening methods for three co-primary outcomes: vaginal birth, composite adverse perinatal outcomes and composite adverse maternal outcomes. Subgroup analyses will assess effect modifiers (eg, parity, age and previous caesarean), with treatment rankings presented using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and rank-heat plots. Sensitivity analyses will examine the impact of bias, missing data and population criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (No. 48189). IPD will be de-identified and securely transferred for storage on a Monash University-hosted shared network drive. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference abstracts and the Cervical Ripening for Induction of Labour Collaborative Evidence Network Meta-Analysis (CIRCLE-NMA) website (https://circlenma.com). Patient and public involvement will guide the communication and interpretation of results. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251077464.

Indexed as

Cervical RipeningLabor, InducedFemaleHumansNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignFetal medicineMaternal medicineNetwork Meta-AnalysisRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID41974543
PMCPMC13084931

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.