Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2013
Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial.
Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 8 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Outpatient Labor Induction With the Transcervical Foley Balloon: A Randomized Trial Comparing Outpatient Immediate Removal Foley Versus Standard Inpatient Foley Induction
Outpatient Foley Catheter Compared to Usual Inpatient Care for Cervical Ripening: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Outpatient Foley for Starting Induction of Labor at Term
Outpatient Versus Inpatient Double Balloon Catheter for Induction of Labor: a Randomised Trial
Prostaglandin Insert (Propess) Versus Trans-cervical Balloon Catheter for Out-patient Labour Induction: A Randomised Controlled Trial of Feasibility
Sleep Disturbances and Depression of the Mother Affect to the Pain During Balloon Catheter Induction of Labour
Outpatient Foley For Starting Induction of Labor at Term in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized-Controlled Study
Induction of Labor in Women With Unfavorable Cervix: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Outpatient to Inpatient Cervical Ripening Using Dilapan-S® (HOMECARE)
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outpatient or Inpatient Setting for Cervical Ripening Before Induction of Labour: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Pooled it
- Inpatient vaginal dinoprostone vs outpatient balloon catheters for cervical ripening in induction of labor: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Pooled it
- Postpartum readmission for maternal infection or neonatal adverse events in women randomised to outpatient balloon versus inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour: a post-trial follow up study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Nulliparous Participants Undergoing Labor Induction by Cervical Ripening Method.American journal of perinatology · 2023Trial
- Patient satisfaction with the cervical ripening balloon as a method for induction of labour: a randomised controlled trial.Singapore medical journal · 2018Trial
- A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Trial
- Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2014Trial
- Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Topical Dinoprostone vs. Foley's Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cervical Ripening Approaches.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Cervical ripening at home or in hospital during induction of labour: the CHOICE prospective cohort study, process evaluation and economic analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Observational
- Outcomes of Outpatient Versus Inpatient Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Outpatient labor induction-Exploring future potential by assessing eligibility in a historical cohort.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Effect of cervical Bishop score on induction of labor at term in primiparas using Foley catheter balloon: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Mechanical methods for induction of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Intra-cervical Foley Balloon Catheter Versus Prostaglandins for the Induction of Labour: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.
methodsWomen with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N=101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n=50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n=51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.
resultsOPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p< .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p= .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p=.003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p< .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p=.001).
conclusionsOPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.