Database - (CIANE) | |
Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website) |
https://ciane.net/id=2816 | ➡ Modify this record |
Bibliographical entry (without author) : | Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: A meta-analysis - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology - Vol. 118, 6 - p.647-654 |
Author(s) : | Fox, N.S.; Saltzman, D.H.; Roman, A.S.; Klauser, C.K.; Moshier, E.; Rebarber, A. |
Year of publication : | 2011 |
URL(s) : | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.… |
Résumé (français) : |
|
Abstract (English) : | Background There are a number of agents used for cervical ripening prior to the induction of labour. Two commonly used agents are intravaginal misoprostol and a transcervical Foley catheter. Objective To review the evidence comparing misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter placement for induction of labour, and perform a meta-analysis comparing these two induction agents. Search strategy We conducted database searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library Database, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Bibliographies of all relevant articles were reviewed. Selection criteria Prospective, randomised trials comparing the use of intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter for the purpose of cervical ripening and induction of labour were included. We excluded studies in which the patients in these two intervention groups also received other induction agents concurrently, such as oral misoprostol, oxytocin, or other prostaglandins. Data collection and analysis The primary outcomes selected were time to delivery, and the rates of caesarean section, uterine tachysystole, and chorioamnionitis. Random-effects generalised linear models with a poisson distribution and log link function were used to compare the two induction agents across the studies. Main results Nine studies (1603 patients) were identified as eligible to be included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the mean time to delivery (mean difference 1.08 ± 2.19 hours shorter for misoprostol, P = 0.2348), the rate of caesarean delivery (RR 0.991; 95% CI 0.768, 1.278), or in the rate of chorioamnionitis (RR 1.130; 95% CI 0.611, 2.089) between women who received misoprostol compared with transcervical Foley catheter. Patients who received misoprostol had significantly higher rates of tachysystole compared with women who received a transcervical Foley catheter (RR 2.844; 95% CI 1.392, 5.812). Conclusions Intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter have similar effectiveness as induction agents. Transcervical Foley catheter is associated with a lower incidence of tachysystole. © 2011 RCOG. |
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 |