Dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare dinoprostone 10 mg controlled-release vaginal insert with other forms of vaginal or cervical prostaglandin for cervical ripening. DATA SOURCES: Literature search strategy included review of the Cochrane database of randomized trials, on-line searching of MEDLINE, hand searching of bibliographies, and contact with authors of relevant reports. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials were included if they compared a dinoprostone slow-release vaginal insert with an alternative vaginal or cervical prostaglandin for cervical ripening and labor induction in women at term with singleton gestations. Primary end points were delivery by 24 hours postinsertion, uterine hypertonus with fetal heart change, and cesarean delivery rate. Study inclusion, validity assessment, and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers, and cross-checked for consistency. Data were combined when appropriate, using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects method. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi-square statistics. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Nine relevant trials were identified, seven comparing the dinoprostone 10 mg vaginal insert with dinoprostone gel and two with misoprostol. Five trials reported adequate methods for randomization concealment. None were double blind. The likelihood of delivery by 24 hours was similar with the vaginal insert and alternatives: common odds ratio (OR) 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56, 1.15). Uterine hypertonus with change in fetal heart and cesarean delivery rate were also similar: common OR 1.19 (95% CI 0.56, 2.54) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.56, 1.08), respectively. The secondary end points of mean time to delivery and delivery by 12 hours appeared to favor misoprostol-dinoprostone gel. However, data for these end points were heterogeneous and their combination is therefore of limited value and potentially misleading. CONCLUSION: No clinically significant differences were identified between the vaginal insert and alternatives used for cervical ripening at term.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".