SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05622968 (Outpatient Cervical Ripening With Foley Catheter for Induction of Labour in Low Risk Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 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 Cervical Ripening With Foley Catheter for Induction of Labour in Low Risk Women: a Quasi-experimental Study (OFC Study)
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 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
- Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 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
- Outpatient cervical ripening with Foley balloon or mifepristone: Insights into the time taken to reach the active phase of labor.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Setting of Induction of Labour with Double-Balloon Catheter in Low-risk Pregnancies: Outpatient Versus Inpatient.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and feasibility of implementing outpatient labor induction with misoprostol: A prospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of methods of preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in Poland and in Germany (Part II): maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- 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
- Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Factors of Non-Compliance with a Protocol for Oral Administration of Misoprostol (AngustaJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Women's experiences and views of outpatient and inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A secondary qualitative study.European journal of midwifery · 2023Article
- Head in the sand: Contemporary Australian attitudes towards induction of labour.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022Article
- Adapting obstetric and neonatal services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Correction to: Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and metaanalysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Is Unfavourable Cervix prior to Labor Induction Risk for Adverse Obstetrical Outcome in Time of Universal Ripening Agents Usage? Single Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of pregnancy · 2020Observational
- Comparison of pre and post Foley catheter Bishop's Score: A retrospective record review at Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi, Pakistan.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Relationship among Maternal Perception of Childbirth Experience, Spiritual Health and Maternal-Infant Relationship in the Postpartum Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
- Out-of-Hospital Cervical Ripening With a Synthetic Hygroscopic Cervical Dilator May Reduce Hospital Costs and Cesarean Sections in the United States-A Cost-Consequence Analysis.Frontiers in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the number of indications for labour induction continue to increase, the focus has shifted to performing these procedures in an outpatient setting. This study aims to systematically review published data from randomized controlled trials that compare outpatient with inpatient labour induction, to ascertain the role of outpatient labour induction for low-risk pregnancies.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review wherein we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis Previews®, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported on maternal, fetal and resource-related outcomes following outpatient versus inpatient labour induction. Pooled incidences and mean differences were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the method of induction.
resultsOf the 588 records identified, 12 publications, representing nine independent randomized controlled trials conducted in Australia, Europe and North America, were included. These reported on 2615 cases of labour induction (1320 outpatients versus 1295 inpatients). Overall, apart from a higher number of suspicious fetal heart rate tracings [RR = 1.43 (1.10, 1.86)] and a shorter mean length of hospital stay [MD = 282.48 min (160.23, 404.73) shorter] in the outpatient group, there were no differences in delivery method, adverse outcomes or resource-use between the two arms. On subgroup analysis, when comparing the use of balloon catheters in both arms, those induced as outpatients had fewer caesarean deliveries [RR = 0.52 (0.30, 0.90)], a shorter admission-to-delivery interval [MD = 370.86 min (19.19, 722.54) shorter], and a shorter induction to delivery interval [MD = 330.42 min (120.13, 540.71) shorter].
conclusionOutpatient labour induction in resource-rich settings is at least as effective and safe, in carefully selected patient populations, when compared with inpatient labour induction. Whether outpatient labour induction results in lower rates of caesarean deliveries needs to be explored further.
trial registrationThis systematic review was prospectively registered in Prospero ( CRD42019118049 ).
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.