↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alfred Osoti, Davies Kiprop Kibii, Tito Mario Kual Tong, Innocent Maranga

Abstract

The safest, most effective and fastest combined approaches to induction of labor is unknown. In an open-label randomized clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy of combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor on the incidence of failed induction, induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Pregnant women at gestational age of 28 weeks or greater admitted at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya for induction of labor were enrolled then randomized to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter inflated by 30 cm3 of normal saline and 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol or 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol alone. Women underwent 6 hourly reviews and additional misoprostol inserted if required. The primary outcome was incidence of failed induction. Secondary outcomes were induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. We conducted an intent-to-treat analysis and compared means or medians using t-test or Wilcoxon rank, proportions using Chi-square or Fishers test as appropriate. Induction-to-delivery interval were compared using the log-rank test. P-values of < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded the null were considered statistically significant. Between February and May 2016, we enrolled 180 of 237 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor and randomized them to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (n = 90) or vaginal misoprostol alone (n = 90). The socio-demographic and obstetric characteristics were similar between the two groups. Failed induction rates were lower but not statistically significant following combined extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (8.9%) versus vaginal misoprostol alone (11.1%). The mean induction-to-delivery time was 4.8 h shorter in the combined extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (mean 18.9, standard deviation (SD) 7.2 h) compared to misoprostol only group (mean 14.1, SD 6.9 h) (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Maternal and perinatal complications were similar between the two groups. Extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor did not significantly lower the incidence of failed induction but safely shortened induction-to-delivery time compared to vaginal misoprostol only. Trial was retrospectively registered on 14-03-2016 PACTR201604001535825.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 33 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Mathematics 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 37 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,764,186
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,006
of 4,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,428
of 326,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#38
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.