ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026
Setting of Induction of Labour with Double-Balloon Catheter in Low-risk Pregnancies: Outpatient Versus Inpatient.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Induction of labour is one of the most frequently performed obstetric procedures. This analysis aimed to assess maternal and neonatal outcomes after labour induction with a double-balloon catheter in an outpatient versus inpatient setting in low-risk term pregnancies. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 1010 women with singleton, low-risk term pregnancies undergoing labour induction with a double-balloon catheter were analysed. Of these, 394 received outpatient and 616 inpatient cervical ripening. The primary outcome was the caesarean section rate; secondary outcomes included the induction-to-delivery interval, vaginal delivery within 24 hours and neonatal parameters. Results: Delivery modes were comparable between groups (p = 0.5524), but vaginal delivery within 24 hours occurred less frequently in the outpatient group (25.2% vs. 32.9%, p = 0.0201). Neonatal outcomes were significantly better in the outpatient cohort, with lower rates of arterial umbilical cord pH < 7.10 (2.0% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.0067) and NICU admissions (6.9% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified nulliparity (OR = 10.545), maternal age (OR = 1.076), and birth weight (OR = 1.733) as significant predictors for caesarean section. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was associated with higher BMI (OR = 1.080), nulliparity (OR = 4.191), and fetal macrosomia (OR = 3.675), while labour onset by balloon catheter alone reduced this risk (OR = 0.149). Outpatient induction was associated with a lower risk of arterial pH < 7.10 (OR = 0.352, p = 0.0088). Conclusions: Outpatient cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter is a safe and effective alternative to inpatient induction in low-risk term pregnancies, with comparable delivery outcomes and potential neonatal benefits.
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.