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

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Vaginal Misoprostol versus Cervical Foley Plus Oral Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction



A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Vaginal Misoprostol versus Cervical Foley Plus Oral Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction



Yearbook of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health 2009: 83-84




Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 067143015

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1016/s1090-798x(09)79042-3


Related references

A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. American Journal of Perinatology 26(1): 33-38, 2008

Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E Obstetricia 32(7): 346-351, 2011

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 and Childbirth 18(1): 300, 2018

Combination of foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 122(1): 156, 2013

Randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol and Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Health Renaissance 9(2): 88-90, 2011

Three doses of oral misoprostol versus an intra-cervical Foley catheter for 24 hours for pre-induction cervical ripening in post- dated pregnancies: a randomized controlled trial. Ceylon Medical Journal 62(2): 77-82, 2017

Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 192(3): 747-752, 2005

Oral misoprostol vs. vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: the Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 89(2): 142-143, 2005

Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: A randomized trial of 3 techniques. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 186(6): 1124-1129, 2002

Comparison between vaginal and sublingual misoprostol 50 µg for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor: randomized clinical trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 295(4): 839-844, 2017

A randomized clinical trial comparing misoprostol suppositories with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 184(1): S118, 2001

Vaginal misoprostol is more effective with fewer side effects than oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 185(6 Suppl.): S204, 2001

A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 89(8): 1045-1052, 2010

Oral misoprostol versus combination of foley bulb catheter and oral misoprostol alone for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 218(1): S254-S255, 2018

Oral misoprostol alone versus oral misoprostol and Foley's catheter for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 43(8): 1270-1277, 2017