Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction · 2020
Outpatient versus inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abdelhakim Ahmed Mohamed, Shareef Mohammad Abrar, AlAmodi Abdulhadi A, Aboshama Rehab Abdelhamid, Fathi Mohamed, Abbas Ahmed M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare between outpatient and inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction.
METHODS: We searched in four different databases for the available trials during May 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outpatient to inpatient balloon catheter for induction of labor. We extracted the available data from the included studies and pooled them in meta-analysis using RevMan software. The dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) and the continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).Our primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery. Our secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, Bishop score, and different adverse events including postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, and chorioamnionitis.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs with a total number of 740patients were included. The cesarean delivery rate was significantly reduced among outpatient balloon catheter compared to inpatient balloon catheter (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.46, 0.86], p = 0.004). Outpatient balloon catheter was associated with shorter hospital stay duration in comparison with inpatient group (MD= -0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.14], p = 0.002). Outpatient group was linked to a more favorable increase in Bishop score (MD = 0.88, 95% CI [0.78, 0.98], p>0.001). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding different adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Outpatient balloon catheter priming is safe and effective in reducing cesarean delivery rates and shortening the length of hospital stay with a better Bishop score.
METHODS: We searched in four different databases for the available trials during May 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outpatient to inpatient balloon catheter for induction of labor. We extracted the available data from the included studies and pooled them in meta-analysis using RevMan software. The dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) and the continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).Our primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery. Our secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, Bishop score, and different adverse events including postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, and chorioamnionitis.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs with a total number of 740patients were included. The cesarean delivery rate was significantly reduced among outpatient balloon catheter compared to inpatient balloon catheter (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.46, 0.86], p = 0.004). Outpatient balloon catheter was associated with shorter hospital stay duration in comparison with inpatient group (MD= -0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.14], p = 0.002). Outpatient group was linked to a more favorable increase in Bishop score (MD = 0.88, 95% CI [0.78, 0.98], p>0.001). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding different adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Outpatient balloon catheter priming is safe and effective in reducing cesarean delivery rates and shortening the length of hospital stay with a better Bishop score.