Similar articles

• Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol to induce labour.

  Mol BW. Mol BW. Lancet. 2018 Mar 3;391(10123):837. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30465-3. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29508742 No abstract available.
• Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

  Mundle S, Bracken H, Khedikar V, Mulik J, Faragher B, Easterling T, Leigh S, Granby P, Haycox A, Turner MA, Alfirevic Z, Winikoff B, Weeks AD. Mundle S, et al. Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):669-680. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31367-3. Epub 2017 Jun 28. Lancet. 2017. PMID: 28668289 Clinical Trial.
• [Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol for labour induction].

  Panelius E, Heikinheimo O, Rahkonen L. Panelius E, et al. Duodecim. 2012;128(20):2093-102. Duodecim. 2012. PMID: 23167168 Finnish.
• Foley catheter vs oral misoprostol for induction of labor: individual participant data meta-analysis.

  Kemper JI, Li W, Goni S, Flanagan M, Weeks A, Alfirevic Z, Bracken H, Mundle S, Goonewardene M, Ten Eikelder M, Bloemenkamp K, Rengerink KO, Kruit H, Mol BW, Palmer KR. Kemper JI, et al. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;57(2):215-223. doi: 10.1002/uog.23563. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 33258514
• Intracervical Foley Catheter Plus Intravaginal Misoprostol vs Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Meta-Analysis.

  Lee HH, Huang BS, Cheng M, Yeh CC, Lin IC, Horng HC, Huang HY, Lee WL, Wang PH. Lee HH, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 11;17(6):1825. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061825. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 32168947 Free PMC article.