ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Cervical ripening with mechanical method vs oral misoprostol in pregnancies with elevated BMI: a cohort study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare labour duration and the effectiveness of cervical ripening by transcervical balloon versus oral misoprostol in women with elevated body mass index (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m
methodsA retrospective single-centre cohort (2022-2024) at Montpellier University Hospital including singleton term pregnancies (37-42 weeks) with cephalic presentation, BMI > 25 and Bishop score < 6. Mechanical balloon versus oral misoprostol (25 µg/2 h or 50 µg/4 h) were compared by survival analysis assessing induction-to-delivery interval and by logistic regression assessing vaginal delivery rates, all adjusting for key covariates. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: maternal age < 18 years, scarred uterus, low-lying placenta.
resultsAmong 7336 births, 2225 (30.3%) underwent labour induction, of which 247 met inclusion criteria. Vaginal delivery occurred in 180/247 (72.9%), of which 21/180(11.7%) were operative vaginal, caesareans were 67/247(27.1%), with no statistically significant difference observed; the study was not powered to assess equivalence of caesarean rates. Balloons achieved shorter induction-to-delivery (Mean 25.5 h; 95%CI 23.8-27.2 h vs. 35.3 h; 95%CI 33.0-37.6 h; p < 0.001), and induction-to-active-phase intervals vs. misoprostol (Mean 21.1 h; SD 12.8 h vs. 30.3 h; SD 17.7 h; p < 0.001), without difference in first active-stage and second-stage duration or among misoprostol regimens. Cox regression identified predictors of longer induction-to-delivery: nulliparity (HR:0.31; 95%CI 0.22-0.42), misoprostol (HR:0.46; 95%CI 0.33-0.66) vs intrauterine balloons, LGA (HR:0.63; 95%CI 0.43-0.92), higher BMI (HR:0.97; 95%CI 0.97-1.00), and excessive weight gain (HR:0.98; 95%CI 0.95-1.00). Treatment-by-parity and treatment-by-Bishop score interactions were not significant. A Fine and Gray competing-risks model showed that mechanical ripening vs. misoprostol provided shorter time intervals from induction to delivery (p = 0.033) and to active phase (p = 0.003). After one cycle of ripening, oxytocin infusion was associated with a higher rate of vaginal birth compared with repeated ripening (sHR 2.28, 95%CI 1.49-3.49). PPH or adverse neonatal outcomes were not different.
conclusionsIn a high-BMI population mechanical cervical ripening vs. oral misoprostol show similar effectiveness, with the first associated with a shorter duration of labour induction.
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.