CareLit · DOI-Nachweis · Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
Mechanical versus pharmacological term induction: a cohort group analysis of maternal and neonatal outcome – hygroscopic cervical dilator versus intravaginal versus intracervical prostaglandin E2
DOI 10.1055/s-0036-1593192
Bibliografische Angaben
Nachweis in CareLit
Autor:innenR Raddatz, J Reinhard, R Langer, S Fessler, C Kaufmann, VA Nteli, J Yuan, S Schiermeier, E Herrmann, M Eichbaum, F Louwen
ZeitschriftGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
Ausgabe10/2016
Jahrgang / SeitenNicht angegeben
Kernaussage aus der Literatur
Abstract-Vorschau
Aim: To compare the efficacy & safety of hygroscopic cervical dilator versus two prostaglandin E2 application methods for term induction of labour. Method: Above 36th weeks of gestation, all women, who were admitted to hospital for induction of labour, were labour induced either with the hygroscopic cervical dilator versus intravaginal 1 mg or intracervical 0.5 mg prostaglandin E2 irrespective of cervical Bishop sco…
Zitieren
Zitierempfehlung
R Raddatz, J Reinhard, R Langer, S Fessler, C Kaufmann, VA Nteli, J Yuan, S Schiermeier, E Herrmann, M Eichbaum, F Louwen (2016) Mechanical versus pharmacological term induction: a cohort group analysis of maternal and neonatal outcome – hygroscopic cervical dilator versus intravaginal versus intracervical prostaglandin E2. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde (10). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1593192
Mit CareLit weiterarbeiten