Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Isosorbid Mononitrate for Induction of Labor in Women With Previous One Cesarean Section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of intracervical Foley catheter versus vaginal isosorbid mononitrate (IMN) for induction of labor in women with previous one caesarean section at term. Methods: A prospective clinical trial including 80 term pregnant women who were assigned randomly to receive either intracervical Foley catheter or moistened one tablet of IMN 40 mg vaginally was carried out. Induction to delivery interval and outcomes of labor, adverse effects and acceptability were assessed. Results: There was shorter induction to delivery interval in the catheter group (22.2 ± 4.99 h) when compared to the IMN group (26.1 ± 3.98 h) (P < 0.05). There was a significant headache in the IMN group (10, 25%) in comparison to the catheter group (3, 7.5%). There was a significant maternal pyrexia in catheter group (12, 30%) when compared to IMN group (5, 12.5%). There was no difference between both groups regarding mode of delivery, neonatal outcome and method acceptability. Conclusion: Intracervical Foley catheter is effective, safe and acceptable for labor induction in women with previous one lower segment caesarean section at term when compared to vaginal IMN but, with more maternal pyrexia. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2014;3(2):55-61 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcgo243w
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".