825: Misoprostol with foley bulb vs. misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial

Al-Ibraheemi, Zainab; Brustman, Lois; Bimson, Brianne; Porat, Natalie; Rosenn, Barak

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.734

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study of Blumenthal 1990 and Sanchez‐Ramos 1992 took place between 1980 and 1989; the studies of Allouche 1993, Guinn 2000, Hemlin 1998, Hibbard 1998, Khamaiseh 2012, Lyndrup 1994, Orhue 1995, Perry 1998, Roudsari 2011, Roztocil 1998, Sciscione 1999, St Onge 1995, Sullivan 1996 and Turnquest 1997 between 1990 and 1999; the studies of Tabowei 2003, Culver 2004 and Mullin 2002 between 1998 and 2001; the studies of Al‐Taani 2004, Cromi 2011, Deshmukh 2011, Dionne 2011, Filho 2002, Joshi 2016, Jozwiak 2012, Jozwiak 2013, Krammer 1995a, Lokkegaard 2015, Matonhodze 2003, Mazhar 2003, Moini 2003, Niromanesh 2003, Oliveira 2010, Pennell 2009, Prager 2008, Roudsari 2011, Rudra 2012, Saleem 2006, Sharami 2005 and Tita 2006 between 2000 and 2009; the studies of Jozwiak 2014 and Salim 2011 between 2008 and 2011; and the studies of Aduloju 2016, Ahmed 2016, Al‐Ibraheemi 2018, Amorosa 2017, Barda 2018, Browne 2011, Carbone 2013, Chavakula 2015, Cromi 2012, Edwards 2014c, El Khouly 2017, Garba 2016, Goonewardene 2014, Haugland 2012, Henry 2013,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vaginal misoprostol: Aduloju 2016 (30 cc); Al‐Ibraheemi 2018 (60 cc); Carbone 2013 (60 cc); Dionne 2011 (balloon size and dosage of misoprostol unknown); Lanka 2014 (30 cc).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty‐five studies declared no conflict of interest (Aduloju 2016; Ahmed 2016; Al‐Ibraheemi 2018; Amorosa 2017; Barda 2018; Chavakula 2015; Cromi 2012; Edwards 2014c; El Khouly 2017; Filho 2002; Garba 2016; Goonewardene 2014; Henry 2013; Hoppe 2016; Husain 2017; Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; Kandil 2012; Kruit 2016; Laddad 2013; Lanka 2014; Lewis 1983; Lokkegaard 2015; Mackeen 2018; Meetei 2015; Noor 2015; Pennell 2009; Salim 2011; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Somirathne 2017;Tan 2015; ten Eikelder 2016; Wang 2014; Wu 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We judged 62 trials to be at low risk of selection bias, reporting some form of adequate random sequencing such as a computer‐generated sequence or a list of random numbers (Aduloju 2016; Ahmed 2016; Al‐Ibraheemi 2018; Al‐Taani 2004; Amorosa 2017; Atad 1996; Bagratee 1990; Blumenthal 1990; Browne 2011; Carbone 2013; Chavakula 2015; Chua 1997; Cromi 2011; Cromi 2012; Culver 2004; Deo 2012; Edwards 2014c; El Khouly 2017; Filho 2002; Garba 2016; Gelisen 2005; Goonewardene 2014; Guinn 2000; Henry 2013; Hibbard 1998; Husain 2017; Johnson 1985; Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; Khamaiseh 2012; Krammer 1995a; Lanka 2014; Lokkegaard 2015; Mackeen 2018; Matonhodze 2003; Mazhar 2003; Meetei 2015; Mullin 2002; Mundle 2017; Niromanesh 2003; Oliveira 2010; Ophir 1992; Orhue 1995; Perry 1998; Prager 2008; Rouben 1993; Salim 2011; Sanchez‐Ramos 1992; Sciscione 1999; Sharami 2005; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Solt 2009; Somirathne 2017; St Onge 1995; Suffecool 2014; Tabowei 2003; Tan 2015; ten Eikelder 2016;…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We considered 38 studies to be at low risk of attrition bias with data analyses according to intention‐ to‐treat and minimal/no loss to follow‐up or exclusion of women (Aduloju 2016; Al‐Ibraheemi 2018; Al‐Taani 2004; Amorosa 2017; Atad 1996; Carbone 2013; Chavakula 2015; Chua 1997; Cromi 2011; Culver 2004; Dalui 2005; Deshmukh 2011; Edwards 2014c; El Khouly 2017; Filho 2002; Guinn 2000; Henry 2013; Jeeva 1982; Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; Lanka 2014; Lokkegaard 2015; Mackeen 2018; Mullin 2002; Mundle 2017; Noor 2015; Ntsaluba 1997; Oliveira 2010; Pennell 2009; Perry 1998; Prager 2008; Roberts 1986; Roztocil 1998; Suffecool 2014; Sullivan 1996; ten Eikelder 2016; Wu 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

100

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low‐dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.Search methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, , the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.Selection criteriaClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra‐amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra‐amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very‐low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low‐quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate‐quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vaginal misoprostol: Aduloju 2016 (30 cc); Al‐Ibraheemi 2018 (60 cc); Carbone 2013 (60 cc); Dionne 2011 (balloon size and dosage of misoprostol unknown); Lanka 2014 (30 cc).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%