Can we predict successful cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal inserts?

Hiersch, Liran; Borovich, Adi; Gabbay‐Benziv, Rinat; Maimon-Cohen, Moria; Aviram, Amir; Yogev, Yariv; Ashwal‏, Eran

doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4260-1

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 16 studies included, seven described only the derivation of a model, 23,24,26,28,[30][31][32] five described derivation and internal validation, 21,22,25,27,34 one described derivation, internal and external validation, 20 and three described only the external validation of existing models. 16,29,33 Model derivation in almost all cases involved multivariable logistic regression, except for one that derived a score based on clinical observations.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most commonly considered endpoint/outcome was the mode of delivery (cesarean or vaginal delivery) with 26,29,32 or without 16,[20][21][22][23][24][25]27,28,30,31,33,34 a time limit of 24 hours. However, one model used a Bishop score <7 after 24 hours of IOL as a measure of failure, 23 another used the termination of oxytocin to halt labor for any reason 33 and three others considered time to delivery or length of labor as endpoints. 31,32,34 Three studies described the use of institutional protocols for both IOL and management of labor, nine only described protocols for IOL and four did not describe protocols for either IOL or labor management.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The full list of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion can be found in Supporting Information Table S1. In total, 16 studies were included 16,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] describing 14 unique prediction models (Table 1). For studies that described more than one model, 23,24 only the models that fulfilled eligibility criteria were included.…”

Section: General Characteristics Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: A systematic review

Meier

Parrish

D’Souza

2019

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and compare clinical models using universally accessible clinical and demographic factors that were derived and/or validated to predict the success of labor induction with a view to making recommendations for practice. Material and methods: MEDLINE, Embase, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed (for non-MEDLINE and studies in-progress) were searched from inception to November 2017. Only studies that derived and/or validated clinical prediction models using variables obtained through antenatal history and digital cervical examination were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data from eligible studies into a standardized form. Extracted data included: participant characteristics, sample size, variables considered and included, endpoint definitions, study design and model performance. The Prediction Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to appraise included studies. In view of clinical and methodologic heterogeneity between studies, only descriptive analysis was possible. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews [CRD42017081548].Results: The search identified 16 studies describing 14 prediction models derived between 1966 and 2018. Models varied and demonstrated major limitations with regard to methodology, scope and performance. Of the derived models, six were internally validated and three were externally validated. Performance was most commonly measured using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, which ranged from 0.68 to 0.79, 0.67 to 0.77 and 0.61 to 0.73 for derived, internally validated and externally validated models, respectively. The risk-of-bias of included studies ranged from some studies fulfilling only 36% and some others fulfilling 86% of eligible PROBAST items. Conclusions:No published model can be recommended for use at the bedside to determine the success of vaginal birth after labor induction. Based on the limitations of included models, a list of recommendations for improving model performance and utilization is provided, as well as measures for encouraging appropriate use of prediction models. The attitudes of women and care providers, and the clinical and | 1101 MEIER Et al.

show abstract

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Characteristics Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: A systematic review

Meier

Parrish

D’Souza

2019

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent retrospective study, that included 986 women who underwent cervical ripening for labor induction using slow‐release PGE 2 vaginal insert reported successful ripening in 78.5%. These success rates are similar to those found in our study (82.8%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of the efficacy of dinoprostone slow release vaginal insert (Propess) for cervical ripening: A prospective cohort study

Daykan

Biron‐Shental

Navve

et al. 2018

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As IOL success is influenced by previous successful vaginal delivery,31–33 the adjusted analysis was further stratified by parity (online supplementary tables S2 and S3). The risk of cesarean delivery was not different in the IOL group compared with the expectant management group in nulliparous pregnancies (aRR 1.06; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21), or in multiparous pregnancies (aRR 0.93; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of delivery in women with pre-pregnancy diabetes mellitus: a population-based study

Brown

Melamed

Murray‐Davis

et al. 2019

BMJ Open Diab Res Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesControversy exists about the timing of delivery of women with pre-pregnancy type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (PDM). This study aims to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor (IOL) at 38 weeks’ gestation versus expectant management from 39 weeks onward.Research design and methodsThis was a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Better Outcomes Registry and Network in Ontario Canada. Included were all women with PDM, who had a singleton hospital birth at ≥380/7 weeks’ gestation from 2012 to 2017. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared between 937 pregnancies that underwent IOL at 380/7–386/7 weeks (‘38-IOL group’) versus 1276 pregnancies expectantly managed resulting in a birth at ≥390/7 weeks (‘39-Exp group’). The primary outcome was all-cause cesarean delivery. Multivariable modified Poisson regression was performed to generate adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs, adjusted for parity, maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index and PDM type. Other outcomes included instrumental delivery, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and newborn metabolic disturbances.ResultsCesarean delivery occurred in 269 women (28.7%) in the 38-IOL group versus 333 women (26.1%) in the 39-Exp group—aRR 1.07 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.22). The respective rates of instrumental delivery were 11.2% and 10.2% (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.61). NICU admission was more common in the 38-IOL group (27.6%) than in the 39-Exp group (16.8%) (aRR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.90), as were jaundice requiring phototherapy (12.4% vs 6.2%) (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.57) and newborn hypoglycemia (27.3% vs 14.7%) (aRR 1.74, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.07).ConclusionIn pregnant women with PDM, IOL at 380/7–386/7 weeks was not associated with a higher risk of cesarean delivery, compared with expectant management, but was associated with a higher risk of certain adverse neonatal outcomes.

show abstract

Can we predict successful cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal inserts?

Abstract: Overall, basic parameters, such as parity, cervical dilatation at admission and gestational age can predict successful cervical ripening PGE2 vaginal inserts.

Cited by 27 publications

References 27 publications

Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: A systematic review

Prediction models for determining the success of labor induction: A systematic review

Prediction of the efficacy of dinoprostone slow release vaginal insert (Propess) for cervical ripening: A prospective cohort study

Timing of delivery in women with pre-pregnancy diabetes mellitus: a population-based study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About