Title |
Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2393-13-67 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mieke LG ten Eikelder, Femke Neervoort, Katrien Oude Rengerink, Marta Jozwiak, Jan-Willem de Leeuw, Irene de Graaf, Maria G van Pampus, Maureen Franssen, Martijn Oudijk, Paulien van der Salm, Mallory Woiski, Paula JM Pernet, A Hanneke Feitsma, Huib van Vliet, Martina Porath, Frans Roumen, Erik van Beek, Hans Versendaal, Marion Heres, Ben Willem J Mol, Kitty W M Bloemenkamp |
Abstract |
Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. At present, different methods are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recently, we showed that in term women with an unfavorable cervix the use of a Foley catheter in comparison with vaginal Prostaglandin E2 gel, results in a comparable vaginal delivery rate. A meta-analysis on the subject indicated lower rates of hyperstimulation, and probably as a sequel fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage. Misoprostol (PgE1) is another type of prostaglandin frequently used for labour induction, recommended by the international federation of gynaecology and obstetrics (FIGO). Misoprostol can be administered by vaginal, rectal and oral route. There is evidence that oral administration results in less asphyxia and hyperstimulation than vaginal administration. At present, valid comparisons between oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are lacking. Therefore, we propose a randomised controlled trial comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol in order to assess safety and cost-effectiveness. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
Ireland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
Researcher | 13 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
Other | 25 | 22% |
Unknown | 29 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 48% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 12% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
Psychology | 3 | 3% |
Other | 9 | 8% |
Unknown | 28 | 24% |