Choose your font:
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Source Sans Pro


[Valid RSS] RSS

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 3071 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

Created on : 13 Oct 2019
Modified on : 23 Oct 2019

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Easy

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening methods for induction of labour: A population‐based study using coarsened exact matching

Author(s) :

Pauline Blanc‐Petitjean, Bruno Carbonne, Catherine Deneux‐Tharaux, Marina Salomé, François Goffinet, Camille Le Ray

Year of publication :


URL(s) :…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

There is no consensus about the ideal cervical ripening method to use for induction of labour.

To compare in current practice the effectiveness and safety of four cervical ripening methods.

We performed a matched comparative study using data from the MEDIP prospective population‐based cohort conducted during one month in 2015 in all maternity units of seven French perinatal networks (3042 consecutive women with a live fetus and induction of labour). We analysed 1671 women with singleton cephalic fetus, unscarred uterus, and bishop score <7. Dinoprostone vaginal pessary (reference) was compared to dinoprostone vaginal gel, misoprostol vaginal tablet, and balloon catheter. Effectiveness outcomes were the need for more than one induction agent, oxytocin use, failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (VD < 24 hours), and caesarean delivery. Safety outcomes were meconium‐stained amniotic fluid, uterine hyperstimulation, NICU admission, and post‐partum haemorrhage. Coarsened exact matching was used to balance confounders among the groups. Outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression models.

Compared to the dinoprostone pessary (N = 1142, 68.3%), dinoprostone gel (N = 335, 20.1%) was associated with less failure to achieve VD < 24 hours (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47, 0.91). Misoprostol (N = 103, 6.2%) was associated with less need of more than one induction agent (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34, 0.92) and less oxytocin use (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37, 0.99). The balloon catheter (N = 91, 5.4%) was associated with more failure to achieve VD < 24 hours (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.37, 5.01), more caesarean delivery (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.09, 3.08), and less meconium‐stained amniotic fluid (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02, 0.70). Uterine hyperstimulation rates seemed lower with the balloon catheter (1.2% vs 4.2% for the pessary).

In current practice, no cervical ripening method appears clearly superior to the others considering all effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Full text (private) :

 ➡ Access requires authorization

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Dans la pratique actuelle, aucune méthode de maturation cervicale ne semble nettement supérieure aux autres, compte tenu de tous les résultats d’efficacité et de sécurité.

Argument (English):

In current practice, no cervical ripening method appears clearly superior to the others considering all effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Argumento (português):

Na prática atual, nenhum método de amadurecimento cervical parece claramente superior aos outros, considerando todos os resultados de eficácia e segurança.

Argumento (español):

Keywords :

➡ induction of labor ; ripening of cervix

Author of this record :

Bernard Bel — 13 Oct 2019
➡ latest update : Bernard Bel — 23 Oct 2019

Discussion (display only in English)
➡ Only identified users

 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)


New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact


This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR,
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE,
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase) for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth