+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Membrane stripping vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix



Membrane stripping vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix



American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 178(1 PART 2): S30




(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 032297387

Download citation: RISBibTeXText


Related references

Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Perinatology 19(2): 88-91, 2000

Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 291(6): 1221-1227, 2015

Uterine hyperstimulation following cervix ripening with dinoprostone in a vaginal insert system. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 148(26): 1300-1303, 2004

Pre-induction cervical ripening: comparing between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in women with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 27(18): 1874-1879, 2015

A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191(1): 247-253, 2004

Dinoprostone: slow release vaginal insert (Propess) and intracervical gel (Prepidil) for the induction of labour with unriped cervix. Minerva Ginecologica 56(5): 413-418, 2004

Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective. Bmc Health Services Research 16(): 49-49, 2016

Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 112(4): 801-812, 2008

Induction of labor and pain: a randomized trial between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 24(5): 728-731, 2011

Repeated sustained release dinoprostone vaginal inserts in women with unfavorable cervix may increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage: preliminary results. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 202: 81-82, 2016

Sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary with concurrent high-dose oxytocin infusion compared to sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary followed 6 h later by high-dose oxytocin infusion for labor induction in women at term with unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 71(1): 32-40, 2011

Oxytocin versus sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score ≥ 4 and ≤ 6: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 39(4): 790-798, 2013

Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 200(): 89-93, 2016

The efficacy of dinoprostone vaginal insert for active management of premature rupture of membranes at term: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 39(3): 356-358, 2012

Amniotic fluid index and labor length of pregnancies induced beyond 41 weeks of gestation with unfavorable cervix. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 49(4): 244-248, 2000