Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Механические методы индукции родов

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 14 marzo 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Marta Jozwiak

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, Netherlands

  • Kitty WM Bloemenkamp

    Department of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

  • Anthony J Kelly

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK

  • Ben Willem J Mol

    Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Olivier Irion

    Département de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique, Unité de Développement en Obstétrique, Maternité Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Genève 14, Switzerland

  • Michel Boulvain

    Correspondencia a: Département de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique, Unité de Développement en Obstétrique, Maternité Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Genève 14, Switzerland

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

For this update M Jozwiak and M Boulvain performed data extraction. M Jozwiak entered the data and M Jozwiak and M Boulvain drafted the review. KWM Bloemenkamp, BW Mol, AJ Kelly and O Irion contributed to the final report of the review.

M Boulvain, C Lohse and O Irion wrote the protocol, did the search and extracted the data of the original review. During the process, a standard strategy to perform the reviews on methods for induction of labour was developed. A standard protocol was written, central search and extraction of data were performed, among others, by A Kelly. A Kelly, C Stan and M Boulvain entered the data. M Boulvain, C Stan and C Lohse wrote the draft review, with A Kelly and O Irion contributing to the final version.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Geneva, Switzerland.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Marta Jozwiak, Kitty Bloemenkamp and Ben Willem Mol are involved in an ongoing trial on induction of labour with a Foley catheter compared to induction with prostaglandins (Jozwiak 2009). In future updates Marta Jozwiak, Kitty Bloemenkamp and Ben Willem Mol will not be involved in assessing the Jozwiak 2009 trial for inclusion, assessing risk of bias, or extracting data. These tasks will be carried out by other members of the review team who are not directly involved in the trial.

Acknowledgements

This review was originally conducted by Prof MJNC Keirse. We would like to thank Cornelia Lohse and Catalin Stan for their work on the Boulvain 2001 version of this review; and Benjamin Lamy and Pernille Lau for the translation of articles.

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by four peers (an editor and three referees who are external to the editorial team) and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2023 Mar 30

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Review

Marieke DT Vaan, Mieke LG ten Eikelder, Marta Jozwiak, Kirsten R Palmer, Miranda Davies-Tuck, Kitty WM Bloemenkamp, Ben Willem J Mol, Michel Boulvain

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4

2019 Oct 18

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Review

Marieke DT de Vaan, Mieke LG ten Eikelder, Marta Jozwiak, Kirsten R Palmer, Miranda Davies‐Tuck, Kitty WM Bloemenkamp, Ben Willem J Mol, Michel Boulvain

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3

2012 Mar 14

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Review

Marta Jozwiak, Kitty WM Bloemenkamp, Anthony J Kelly, Ben Willem J Mol, Olivier Irion, Michel Boulvain

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2

2001 Oct 23

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Review

Michel Boulvain, Anthony J Kelly, Cornelia Lohse, Catalin M Stan, Olivier Irion

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233

Differences between protocol and review

Comparisons of balloon catheter with concurrent oxytocin or prostaglandins versus prostaglandins were added, also comparisons of extra‐amniotic infusion with and without concurrent oxytocin versus prostaglandins were added. A number of not prespecified outcomes relevant to the comparisons made in this review were added (maternal fever, antibiotics during labour, endometritis, chorioamnionitis).

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.