➡ Français
➡ Português
➡ Español
![[Valid RSS]](images/icons/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=icon}
 | Database - (CIANE) |
Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website) | |
|
https://ciane.net/id=2767 | ➡ Modify this record   Hard |
|
Bibliographical entry (without author) : | Comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus vaginal isosorbide mononitrate for labor induction - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - Vol. 29, 3 - p.487-492 |
|
Author(s) : | El-Khayat, W.; Alelaiw, H.; El-Kateb, A.; Elsemary, A. |
|
Year of publication : | 2016 |
|
URL(s) : | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.… |
|
Résumé (français) : |
|
|
Abstract (English) : | Objective(S): To compare the effectiveness and safety of intra-cervical Foley catheter combined with intra-vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus intra-vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction in pregnant women with unripe cervices.Methods: Open-labeled randomized controlled trial in Cairo university hospital, Cairo, Egypt during 2012-2014. Three hundred and ninety-five pregnant women at term or post-term with an indication for labor induction and unripe cervix were included in the study. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups. Vaginal misoprostol was used in group 1 (n = 197) and intra-cervical Foley catheter plus vaginal IMN in group 2 (n = 198). Our main outcome measure was cesarean section rate.Results: Among the 395 included patients there were significantly lower duration of induction of labor (p < 0.001) in group 1with lower cesarean section rates [22.8% in group 1versus 33.3% in group 2; RR 0.7 (0.6-0.9), (p = 0.020)]. Whereas the uterine hyperstimulation (p < 0.001) was significantly higher in group 1. There were no significant differences between both groups as regard patients demographic characteristics.Conclusions(s): Vaginal misoprostol is more effective but less safe than Foley catheter combined with vaginal IMN for induction of labor in term and post-term pregnancy. © 2015 Informa UK Ltd. |
|
Sumário (português) : |
|
|
Resumen (español) : |
|
|
Comments : | |
|
Argument (français) : |
|
|
Argument (English): | |
|
Argumento (português): |
|
|
Argumento (español): |
|
|
Keywords : | |
Author of this record : | Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017 |
| Discussion (display only in English) | ||
|---|---|---|
| [Hide guidelines] ➡ Discussion guidelines 1) Comments aim at clarifying the content of the publication or suggesting links for a better comprehension of its topic 2) All comments are public and opinions expressed belong to their authors 3) Avoid casual talk and personal stories 4) Any off-topic comment or containing inappropriate statements will be deleted without notice | ||
New expert query --- New simple query
Creating new record --- Importing records
User management --- Dump database --- Contact
This database created by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) is managed
by Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting CIANE (see below)
(3) or joining any society affiliated with CIANE.
➡ Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
➡ Contact bibli(arobase)ciane.net for more information.
| Donating to CIANE (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth |