Meta‐analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of Foley catheter plus misoprostol for cervical ripening has not been convincingly shown in trials. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence comparing Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. SEARCH STRATEGY: Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched with the terms "Foley catheter," "misoprostol," "cervical ripening," and "labor induction." SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing the methods of cervical ripening for delivery of a viable fetus were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-effects models were used to combine data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials were included, with 1153 patients overall. In a pooled analysis of seven high-quality studies, the combination group had a decreased time to delivery (mean difference -2.36 hours, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.07 to -0.66; P=0.007). Risk of chorioamnionitis was significantly increased in the combination group (risk ratio [RR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.04-4.13; P=0.04), and that of tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes was decreased (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.91; P=0.02). Frequency of cesarean did not differ (P=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of Foley catheter and misoprostol results in a reduced time to delivery, a reduced frequency tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes, and an increased incidence of chorioamnionitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".