Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40134109›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025

Inpatient vaginal dinoprostone vs outpatient balloon catheters for cervical ripening in induction of labor: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Fei Chan, Malitha Patabendige, Michelle R Wise, John M D Thompson, Lynn Sadler, Michael Beckmann, Amanda Henry, Madeleine N Jones, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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

10 authors.

Fei ChanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Malitha PatabendigeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4092-7092
Michelle R WiseDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
John M D ThompsonDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-6944-381X
Lynn SadlerWomen's Health, Te Whatu Ora, Te Toka Tumai, Auckland, New Zealand.
Michael BeckmannMater Health, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Amanda HenryThe George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Medicine and Health, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Madeleine N JonesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Wentao LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 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

introductionOutpatient cervical ripening and induction of labor might offer potential benefits. There are a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outpatient balloon catheters with inpatient vaginal dinoprostone, but the reported outcomes among these trials were inconsistent, justifying the need for a meta-analysis. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of inpatient vaginal dinoprostone compared to outpatient balloon catheters for cervical ripening in labor induction. MATERIAL AND

methodsEligible RCTs were identified using MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to July 2024. Women with live singleton pregnancies at 34 or more weeks of gestation were eligible. The authors of eligible trials were invited to share their de-identified data. The main outcomes were vaginal birth and a composite adverse perinatal and maternal outcome. All analyses were adjusted for age and parity. Two-stage random effects meta-analysis was the main analysis strategy with the intention-to-treat principle. This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022313183) on 27-04-2022.

resultsWe identified three eligible RCTs, and all three shared data (N = 1636); inpatient vaginal dinoprostone (n = 832), outpatient balloon catheter (n = 804). The odds of vaginal birth were higher after inpatient vaginal dinoprostone than outpatient balloon catheter (67.8% vs 61.7%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.30, 95% CI 1.05-1.62, I

conclusionsBalloon catheter used in an outpatient labor induction setting probably leads to fewer vaginal births compared to vaginal dinoprostone in an inpatient setting. In pre-planned subgroup analysis, for pregnant women with underweight/normal weight, both inpatient vaginal dinoprostone and outpatient balloon catheter methods are viable options, but balloon catheter has a lower vaginal birth rate in women with overweight and obesity during pregnancy. The perinatal and maternal safety profiles are comparable.

Indexed as

Cervical RipeningDinoprostoneLabor, InducedOxytocicsAdministration, IntravaginalAdultCathetersFemaleHumansOutpatientsPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDinoprostoneOxytocicsballoon catheterdinoprostonehomeindividual participant datainduction of labormeta‐analysisoutpatient inductionprostaglandinrandomized trials

Identifiers

PMID40134109
PMCPMC12087516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.