SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
The effects of intravenous hydration regimens in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of intrapartum maternal fever on neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of intravenous hydration regimens in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Authentic Consumer-Clinician Co-Design of a Labour and Childbirth Intervention to Optimise Maternal Hydration in Labour: Reaching Consensus to Enhance Rigour.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLabor is both a physiological and physical activity that requires energy expenditure by the woman. Despite this, women are often fasted in labor, with hydration requirements addressed predominantly by intravenous therapy. Little is known about how best to manage this in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor, who can be prone to lengthy labors. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of intravenous hydration regimens on nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science using the search strategy combination of associated key concepts for intravenous therapy and nulliparous laboring women. The primary outcome was excessive neonatal weight loss. Meta-analyses for categorical outcomes included estimates of odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated; and for continuous outcomes the standardized mean difference, each with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed visually and by using the χ
resultsA total of 1512 studies were located and following screening, three studies met the eligibility criteria. No studies reported excessive neonatal weight loss. Increased rates of intravenous therapy (250 mL/h vs. 125 mL/h) during labor were not found to reduce the overall length of labor (mean difference -0.07 h, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13 h) or reduce cesarean sections (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23), when women were not routinely fasted.
conclusionsOur review found no significant improvements for nulliparous women who received higher intravenous fluid volumes when undergoing induction of labor and were not routinely fasted. However, data are limited, and further research is needed.
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.