Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37417714›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023

Double-vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Morgan D Peel, Doortje M R Croll, Jørg Kessler, Birte Haugland, Craig E Pennell, Jan E Dickinson, Raed Salim, Noah Zafran, Kirsten R Palmer, Ben W Mol and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Morgan D PeelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Doortje M R CrollWilhelmina Children's Hospital Birth Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0300-1095
Jørg KesslerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2931-2668
Birte HauglandVoss Hospital, Vossevangen, Norway.
Craig E PennellSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Jan E DickinsonDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Raed SalimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-3603-8452
Noah ZafranDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel.
Kirsten R PalmerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Wentao LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8980-0909

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1176437National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2016729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data. MATERIAL AND

methodsA search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective.

resultsOf the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00, p = 0.050; I

conclusionsSingle-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.

Indexed as

Cervical RipeningLabor, InducedCathetersFemaleHumansPregnancyRiskCook balloonFoley catheterindividual participant datainduction of laborsafetysystematic reviewvaginal birth

Identifiers

PMID37417714
PMCPMC10577628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.