ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Management of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes between 24 and 34 weeks: A before-and-after study of the implementation and modifications of an outpatient management protocol.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 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
introductionIn preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes (PPROM) before 34 weeks, expectant management is preferred in the absence of infection to reduce neonatal morbidity. Outpatient management (OM) has emerged as a potential alternative to prolonged hospitalization, but selection criteria remain ill-defined. Our objective was to evaluate latency between PPROM and delivery, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes before and after the implementation of an OM protocol and its subsequent extensions. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe included all women with PPROM before 34 weeks admitted between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. Two periods were compared: Period A (January 2011-April 2013), when all patients were hospitalized until delivery, and Period B (May 2013-December 2021), when eligible patients were offered OM. Period B was subdivided into three phases (B1-B3) reflecting progressive expansion of eligibility criteria-from stable singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation and normal amniotic fluid (B1), to inclusion of twins and shorter stabilization periods (B2), and finally cases with oligohydramnios or non-cephalic presentations (B3). The primary outcome was latency period (days between PPROM and delivery). Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal complications. Comparisons were made between Periods A and B and across OM subperiods.
resultsA total of 539 patients were included: 145 in Period A and 394 in Period B, of whom 126 (32%) received OM. Mean gestational age at PPROM was similar between periods (28.9 ± 3.1 vs. 28.9 ± 3.3 weeks; p = 0.94), as were latency (median 7 [3-17] days vs. 8 [2-21]; p = 0.66) and gestational age at delivery (30.8 ± 3.3 vs. 30.9 ± 3.8 weeks; p = 0.62). Early neonatal bacterial infection was significantly lower in Period B (24.2% vs. 34.5%; p = 0.01). OM use increased steadily from B1 to B3 without prolonging latency or worsening outcomes.
conclusionFollowing OM protocol implementation, one-third of eligible women with PPROM before 34 weeks were managed at home. Outpatient care, even with broadened eligibility, appeared safe, did not increase maternal or neonatal morbidity, and may reduce early neonatal infections without extending latency.
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.