Trial reportThe Western journal of medicine1993
Prevention of cesarean section. Does intracervical dinoprostone work?
Trial report in The Western journal of medicine, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Definitions of failed induction of labor in the literature: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014Pooled it
- Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Dinoprostone cervical gel.The Western journal of medicine · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the effect of preinduction cervical ripening with the intracervical instillation of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2 gel, 0.5 mg) on the results of labor induced with intravenous oxytocin. We randomly allocated 79 pregnant women to receive either the intracervial application of dinoprostone gel or placebo gel. Compared with control subjects, the group who received dinoprostone had no difference in induction-to-delivery interval or in cesarean section rate. The dinoprostone group had fewer failed inductions, but there was no difference between the two groups in the number who delivered spontaneously within 24 hours. From review of the literature and a meta-analysis, it was likewise revealed that dinoprostone did not favorably affect the cesarean section rate. Contrary to current opinion, intracervical dinoprostone gel does not appreciably lower the cesarean section rate when used at this dose and route before labor is induced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8212680PMC1022221W179605232What 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.