Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to assess pain subjectively and objectively in women during insertion of a Foley catheter for induction of labor. A secondary aim was to assess pain during cervical ripening and to evaluate maternal satisfaction. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital, Sweden. POPULATION: Forty-two women undergoing induction of labor and cervical ripening with a Foley catheter. METHODS: Women were randomly allocated to digital (n=21) or to speculum (n=21) placement of a Foley catheter. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for subjective assessment of pain and, for objective measurements, a skin conductance algesimeter was used and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated (μSs). Maternal satisfaction was evaluated in a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain sensation during placement of the Foley catheter. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between groups in pain measurements during insertion of the Foley catheter. The speculum group had higher median pain scores than the digital group, VAS=5 vs. = 3 (p=0.03) and greater median AUC measurements: 1840 vs. 823 μSs (p=0.04). There was no difference in pain assessments during cervical ripening. Overall satisfaction scores were high and comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: Digital placement of the Foley catheter is subjectively and objectively less painful compared to the use of a speculum. Digital placement should therefore be considered as an alternative in the management of these patients. Ripening of the cervix with the Foley catheter is well tolerated and the overall satisfaction rate among patients induced with this method is high.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".