ReviewCureus2024
Outcomes of Outpatient Versus Inpatient Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Induction of labor (IOL) has become a common practice in obstetrics, leading to an increase in antenatal admissions and workload. This review aims to explore the available options for outpatient IOL and their effectiveness. We conducted an electronic search for trials on Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing inpatient and outpatient labor induction and covering the period until 2024. We selected randomized trials that compared IOL in outpatient vs. inpatient settings and involved mechanical or hormonal agents. The participants were pregnant women with singleton fetuses who were more than 37 weeks and low risk for IOL with a Bishop score <6. When comparing outpatient and inpatient induction methods, we found no significant differences in cesarean section rates and vaginal delivery. Outpatient induction generally resulted in shorter hospital stays. Using a Foley catheter for outpatient induction reduced the cesarean section rate and total hospital stay. There were no safety concerns with this approach. IOL in this analysis was shown to be similar to inpatient IOL in most of the measured outcomes. Implementation of IOL in an outpatient setting proved to be safe with similar outcomes to inpatient IOL.
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.