Search

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of Foley catheter and oral misoprostol for induction of labor (IOL).Methods: The Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour and Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE via Ovid, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Scopus, from inception to April 2019, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol for IOL in viable singleton gestations. Eligible trials for which raw data were obtained were included and individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcomes were vaginal birth, a composite of adverse perinatal outcome (including stillbirth, neonatal death, neonatal seizures, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, severe respiratory compromise or meconium aspiration syndrome) and a composite of adverse maternal outcome (including admission to the intensive care unit, maternal infection, severe postpartum hemorrhage, maternal death or uterine rupture). The quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A two-stage random-effects model was used for meta-analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle and interactions between treatment and baseline characteristics were assessed.Results: Of seven eligible trials, four provided individual participant data for a total of 2815 participants undergoing IOL, of whom 1399 were assigned to Foley catheter and 1416 to oral misoprostol. All four trials provided data for each of the primary outcomes in all 2815 women. Compared with those receiving oral misoprostol, Foley catheter recipients had a slightly decreased chance of vaginal birth (risk ratio (RR), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99); I2 , 2.0%; moderate-certainty evidence). A trend towards a lower rate of composite adverse perinatal outcome was found in women undergoing IOL using a Foley catheter compared with oral misoprostol (RR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.48-1.05); I2 , 14.9%; low-certainty evidence). Composite adverse maternal outcome did not differ between the groups (RR, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03); I2 , 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses of effect modifications did not show significant interactions between intervention and parity or gestational age for any of the primary outcomes.Conclusions: For women undergoing IOL, Foley catheter is less effective than oral misoprostol, as it was associated with fewer vaginal births. However, while we found no significant difference in maternal safety, Foley catheter induction may reduce adverse perinatal outcomes. Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Little is known about depressed patients' profiles and how they are managed. The aim of the study is to compare GPs and psychiatrists for 1 degrees) sociodemographic and clinical profile of their patients considered as depressed 2 degrees) patterns of care provision. METHODS: The study design is an observational cross-sectional study on a random sample of GPs and psychiatrists working in France. Consecutive inclusion of patients seen in consultation considered as depressed by the physician. GPs enrolled 6,104 and psychiatrists 1,433 patients. Data collected: sociodemographics, psychiatric profile, environmental risk factors of depression and treatment. All clinical data were collected by participating physicians; there was no direct independent clinical assessment of patients to check the diagnosis of depressive disorder. RESULTS: Compared to patients identified as depressed by GPs, those identified by psychiatrists were younger, more often urban (10.5% v 5.4% - OR = 2.4), educated (42.4% v 25.4% - OR = 3.9), met DSM-IV criteria for depression (94.6% v 85.6% - OR = 2.9), had been hospitalized for depression (26.1% v 15.6% - OR = 2.0) and were younger at onset of depressive problems (all adjusted p < .001). No difference was found for psychiatric and somatic comorbidity, suicide attempt and severity of current depression. Compared to GPs, psychiatrists more often prescribed tricyclics and very novel antidepressants (7.8% v 2.3% OR = 5.0 and 6.8% v 3.0% OR = 3.8) with longer duration of antidepressant treatment. GPs' patients received more 'non-conventional' treatment (8.8% v 2.4% OR = 0.3) and less psychotherapy (72.2% v 89.1% OR = 3.1) (all adjusted p < .001). CONCLUSION: Differences between patients mainly concerned educational level and area of residence with few differences regarding clinical profile. Differences between practices of GPs and psychiatrists appear to reflect more the organization of the French care system than the competence of providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]