A comparison of the effectiveness of prostaglandin gel and tablet preparations in induction of labour at term.

ISRCTN ISRCTN70152691
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN70152691
Protocol serial number N0016158062
Sponsor Department of Health
Funders Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust (UK), Hammersmith Hospital Pharmacy, NHS R&D Support Funding 2004/05
Submission date
30/09/2005
Registration date
30/09/2005
Last edited
12/04/2011
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Pregnancy and Childbirth
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Mr Douglas Keith Edmonds
Scientific

Women's & Children's Services
Queen Charlottes & Chelsea Hospital
Hammersmith Hospital
Du Cane Road
London
W12 0HS
United Kingdom

Phone +44 (0)20 8383 5239
Email dkedmonds@hhnt.org

Study information

Primary study designInterventional
Study designRandomised controlled trial
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Scientific title
Study objectivesIs Prostin (dinoprostone) gel more effective in induction of labour than Prostin tablets?
Ethics approval(s)Not provided at time of registration
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedPregnancy and Childbirth: Labour induction
InterventionProstil gel vs Prostil tablet
Intervention typeDrug
PhaseNot Specified
Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s)prostaglandin
Primary outcome measure(s)

1. Mode of delivery and indication
2. Time in labour
3. Number of doses of prostaglandin needed
4. Cervical dilation at transfer to labour Ward.
5. Frequency of artificial rupture of membranes
6. Frequency of oxytocin use
7. Frequency of meconium staining of liquor
8. Frequency of uterine tachysystole/hyperstimulation
9. Frequency of need for foetal blood sampling in labour
10. Frequency of need for neonatal resuscitation or transfer to Neonatal Unit

Key secondary outcome measure(s)

Not provided at time of registration

Completion date01/11/2006

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
SexFemale
Target sample size at registration165
Key inclusion criteriaOutpatients
Key exclusion criteriaNot provided at time of registration
Date of first enrolment01/11/2004
Date of final enrolment01/11/2006

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • United Kingdom
  • England

Study participating centre

Women's & Children's Services
London
W12 0HS
United Kingdom

Results and Publications

Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/05/2011 Yes No