Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 18;2019(10):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3

Hay 1995.

Methods RCT. No details were given on the method for concealment of the allocation.
Participants 28 women in the comparison between Dilapan and PGE2, with a total of 39 women recruited (15 Dilapan group, 13 PGE2 group, 11 amniotomy).
Interventions Dilapan versus PGE2, no details on dosage provided.
Outcomes CS, hyperstimulation, nausea.
Notes Abstract only.
Setting: UK
Study period: not reported
Funding: not reported
Declarations of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not feasible due to nature of intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to judge
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to judge
Other bias Unclear risk Abstract only