Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

References

• ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. Reaffirmed 2016. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386–397.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vrees RA. Induction of labor. Medscape. Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2500091-overview (Accessed: 20 August, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Rankin K, Chodankar R, Raymond K, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert versus dinoprostone vaginal insert: A comparison of labour and delivery outcomes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 [July 25]. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(6 Pt 1):1535–1542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farah LA, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rosa C, et al. Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(2):364–369; discussion 369–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4(4):CD004221.
   Google Scholar
• Wing DA, Park MR, Paul RH. A randomized comparison of oral and intravaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;95(6 Pt 1):905–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall R, Duarte-Gardea M, Harlass F. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(6):1044–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S, et al. A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol. 2004;21(3):139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandil M, Emarh M, Sayyed T, et al. Foley catheter versus intra-vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor in post-term gestations. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(2):303–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman W. Techniques for ripening the unfavorable cervix prior to induction. Uptodate Topic 5398 version 78.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/techniques-for-ripening-the-unfavorable-cervix-prior-to-induction#H13846262 (Accessed 21 September 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Atad J, Hallak M, Auslender R, et al. A randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2, oxytocin, and the double-balloon device in inducing labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(2):223–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Xue J, Gaudet L, et al. Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;129(3):193–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lajusticia H, Martínez-Domínguez SJ, Pérez-Roncero GR, et al. Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297(5):1089–1100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the Prisma statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran WG. The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika. 1950;37(3–4):256–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aduloju OP, Akintayo AA. Combined Foley’s catheter with vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Feb;57(1):119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Ibraheemi Z, Brustman L, Bimson BE, et al. Misoprostol with Foley bulb compared with misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):23–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, et al. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1124–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatiyani BR, Gandhewar MR, Kapsikar S, et al. A study comparing vaginal misoprostol alone with vaginal misoprostol in combination with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(2):485–488.
   Google Scholar
• Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, et al. Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):247–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol–Foley catheter for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):1031–1035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(1):33–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husain S, Husain S, Izhar R. Oral misoprostol alone versus oral misoprostol and Foley’s catheter for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(8):1270–1277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashanian M, Akbarian AR, Fekrat M. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with intravaginal misoprostol and Foley catheter cervical traction. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;92(1):79–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehl S, Ehard A, Berlit S, et al. Combination of misoprostol and mechanical dilation for induction of labour: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(2):315–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanka S, Surapaneni T, Nirmalan PK. Concurrent use of Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(6):1527–1533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, et al. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1357–1364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoti A, Kibii DK, Tong TMK, et al. Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust OA, Greybush M, Atlas RO, et al. Preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized trial of intravaginal misoprostol alone vs. a combination of transcervical Foley balloon and intravaginal misoprostol. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(10):899–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugwu EO, Onah HE, Obi SN, et al. Effect of the Foley catheter and synchronous low dose misoprostol administration on cervical ripening: a randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(6):572–577.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD001338.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a transcervical Foley catheter as a source of infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):539–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;4(4):CD001233.
   Google Scholar
• Schoen CN, Saccone G, Backley S, et al. Increased single-balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Sep;97(9):1051–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Adwy AM, Sobh SM, Belal DS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of posterior cervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):102–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uygur D, Ozgu-Erdinc AS, Deveer R, et al. Fetal fibronectin is more valuable than ultrasonographic examination of the cervix or bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(1):94–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai Y, Qu M, Jin M. Application effect of single balloon catheters in labor induction of pregnant women in late-term pregnancy and their influences on stress and inflammatory responses. Exp Ther Med. 2018;15(4):3352–3356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar