Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4,776 questions · 7,311 findings · 959 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1,498 · 20.5%GRADE not reported 303 · 4.1%Very low 1,839 · 25.2%Low 1,991 · 27.2%Moderate 1,277 · 17.5%High 403 · 5.5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose vaginal misoprostol

Serious maternal morbidity or death · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 464 participants
Very low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose vaginal misoprostol

Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes compared with low‐dose vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.5, 1.97]
7 studies · 941 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose vaginal misoprostol

Admission to neonatal intensive care unit · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with low‐dose vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.61, 1.63]
9 studies · 1302 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) probably leads to higher vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.28 [1.13, 1.46]
2 studies · 782 participants
Moderate

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.81 [0.48, 1.38]
2 studies · 2033 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Caesarean section · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) probably leads to higher caesarean section compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.17 [1.04, 1.32]
7 studies · 3178 participants
Moderate

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.11 [0.6, 2.06]
3 studies · 2627 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Serious maternal morbidity or death · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

It is very uncertain whether balloon (Foley or ATAD) changes serious maternal morbidity or death compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.5 [0.05, 5.52]
3 studies · 2627 participants
Very low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in apgar score < 7 after 5 minutes compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.71 [0.38, 1.32]
4 studies · 2693 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose oral misoprostol

Admission to neonatal intensive care unit · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with low‐dose oral misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.82 [0.58, 1.17]
5 studies · 2873 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose vaginal misoprostol

Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) showed no clear difference in vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours compared with low‐dose vaginal misoprostol (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.09 [0.85, 1.39]
2 studies · 340 participants
Low

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) vs low‐dose vaginal misoprostol

Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes · third trimester induction of labour in women with a viable fetus

Balloon (Foley or ATAD) probably leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes compared with low‐dose vaginal misoprostol (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical methods for induction of labour 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.39 [0.18, 0.85]
8 studies · 1322 participants
Moderate

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Clinical improvement (dichotomous) · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Clinical improvement (continuous) · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Histological improvement (dichotomous) · active EoE pediatric patients

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 64 participants
Very low

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Histological improvement (continuous) · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Endoscopic improvement (continuous) · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide

Withdrawals due to adverse events · active EoE pediatric patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone

Clinical improvement (dichotomous) · active EoE patients

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found