Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Apr 24;13(9):983.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare13090983.

Topical Dinoprostone vs. Foley's Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cervical Ripening Approaches

Amal Yaseen Zaman  1 , Howaida Amin Hassan  2 , Nageshwar Venkatesh Reddy  3 , Farzana Begum  4 , Samar Ahmed Mahmoud  5 , Hayat Alghamdi  5 , Naglaa Kamel AbdAllah Hussein  5 , Mariam Yousif Elhussain  6 , Soad Mohamed Alnassry  7 , Magda Mubarak Merghani  6 , Manal Elzein Musa  8 , Hanan Mohammed Mohammed  5 , Hammad Ali Fadlalmola  9
Affiliations
Review

Topical Dinoprostone vs. Foley's Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cervical Ripening Approaches

Amal Yaseen Zaman et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Background and aim: Labor induction is increasing in obstetric practice. In women with an unfavorable cervix, cervical ripening is required for successful induction. We conducted this review to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of two interventions used for cervical ripening, topical prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) and transcervical Foley's catheter. Methods: We systematically searched four biomedical databases on 15 November 2024, for relevant studies. The studies' eligibility was determined after screening their titles, abstracts, and full texts. We extracted relevant data from the studies included. RevMan software V5.4 was used to conduct the random-effect meta-analysis. Misoprostol was excluded from this review due to variability in dosing protocols and inconsistent reporting across studies. A review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD420251026183. Results: This review included 41 studies that in total enrolled 12,877 women (6722 for Foley's catheter and 6155 for dinoprostone). The efficacy of the two interventions was comparable as evidenced by the similarity in the induction to delivery time, Bishop score change, the rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, and the risk of induction failure. Foley's catheter was linked with lower risks of caesarian delivery (RR = 0.84, p = 0.006), uterine hyperstimulation (RR = 0.39, p < 0.001), postpartum hemorrhage (RR = 0.76, p = 0.03), and a 1-min Apgar score < 7 (RR = 0.75, p = 0.02). However, it was associated with an extra need for oxytocin augmentation (RR = 1.18, p < 0.001). The risks of instrumental delivery, intrapartum pyrexia, postpartum infection, meconium passage, umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.1, a 5-min Apgar score < 7, and neonatal intensive care requirement were comparable for the two interventions. Conclusions: In comparison with dinoprostone, Foley's catheter is equally effective and well tolerated. We recommend Foley's catheter use for women with a previous caesarian delivery and in low-resource settings.

Keywords: Foley’s catheter; cervical ripening; dinoprostone; meta-analysis; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the analysis; Caesarian delivery [27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of the analysis; Oxytocin augmentation [27,29,30,35,36,37,39,42,43,45,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,57,59,60,61,62,65].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of the analysis; Uterine hyperstimulation or tachystole [27,29,31,32,37,41,43,45,46,47,48,50,51,53,54,55,58,60,61,63,65].
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of the analysis; Postpartum hemorrhage [27,28,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,43,47,48,50,53,59,63].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of the analysis; Apgar Score < 7 [28,29,34,35,36,37,38,41,42,43,45,46,48,49,51,52,53,56,59,60,62,65,66,67].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sanchez-Ramos L., Levine L.D., Sciscione A.C., Mozurkewich E.L., Ramsey P.S., Adair C.D., Kaunitz A.M., McKinney J.A. Methods for the induction of labor: Efficacy and safety. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024;230:S669–S695. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gary C.F., Leveno K., Dashe J., Gary C.F., Leveno K., Dashe J. Williams Obstetrics. 25th ed. McGraw Hill; New York, NY, USA: 2018. Induction and Augmentation of Labor.
    1. Ragunath M., McEwan A. Induction of labour. Obstet. Gynaecol. Reprod. Med. 2008;18:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ogrm.2007.11.002. - DOI
    1. Vellekoop J., Vrouenraets F.P., van der Steeg J.W., Mol B.W., Roumen F.J. Indications and results of labour induction in nulliparous women: An interview among obstetricians, residents and clinical midwives. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009;146:156–159. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hamilton B.E., Martin J.A., Osterman M.J., Curtin S.C., Matthews T.J. Births: Final Data for 2014. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 2015;64:1–64. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources