↓ Skip to main content

Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009792.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen M West, Marta Jozwiak, Jodie M Dodd

Abstract

Women with a prior caesarean delivery have an increased risk of uterine rupture and for women subsequently requiring induction of labour it is unclear which method is preferable to avoid adverse outcomes. This is an update of a review that was published in 2013. To assess the benefits and harms associated with different methods used to induce labour in women who have had a previous caesarean birth. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any method of third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction, with placebo/no treatment or other methods in women with prior caesarean section requiring labour induction in a subsequent pregnancy. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. Eight studies (data from 707 women and babies) are included in this updated review. Meta-analysis was not possible because studies compared different methods of labour induction. All included studies had at least one design limitation (i.e. lack of blinding, sample attrition, other bias, or reporting bias). One study stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. Vaginal PGE2 versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 42 women): no clear differences for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.03, evidence graded low), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low), serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low). Also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The GRADE outcomes vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes were not reported. Vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 38 women): this trial stopped early because one woman who received misoprostol had a uterine rupture (RR 3.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 84.66) and one had uterine dehiscence. No other outcomes (including GRADE outcomes) were reported. Foley catheter versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, subgroup of 53 women): no clear difference between groups for vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.44, evidence graded low), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.09, evidence graded low), and caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.92, evidence graded low). There were also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Double-balloon catheter versus vaginal PGE2 (one trial, subgroup of 26 women): no clear difference in caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32, evidence graded very low). Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death were not reported. Oral mifepristone versus Foley catheter (one trial, 107 women): no primary/GRADE outcomes were reported. Fewer women induced with mifepristone required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76). There were slightly fewer cases of uterine rupture among women who received mifepristone, however this was not a clear difference between groups (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus Foley catheter (one trial, 80 women): fewer women induced with IMN achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.21, evidence graded low). There was no difference between groups in the number of women who had a caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59, evidence graded very low). More women induced with IMN required oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.32). There were no clear differences in the other reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. 80 mL versus 30 mL Foley catheter (one trial, 154 women): no clear difference between groups for the primary outcomes: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20, evidence graded moderate) and caesarean section (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24, evidence graded moderate). However, more women induced using a 30 mL Foley catheter required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). There were no clear differences between groups for other secondary outcomes reported. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Vaginal PGE2 pessary versus vaginal PGE2 tablet (one trial, 200 women): no difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.60, evidence graded very low), or any of the reported secondary outcomes. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. RCT evidence on methods of induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean section is inadequate, and studies are underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes. Several studies reported few of our prespecified outcomes and reporting of infant outcomes was especially scarce. The GRADE level for quality of evidence was moderate to very low, due to imprecision and study design limitations.High-quality, adequately-powered RCTs would be the best approach to determine the optimal method for induction of labour in women with a prior caesarean birth. However, such trials are unlikely to be undertaken due to the very large numbers needed to investigate the risk of infrequent but serious adverse outcomes (e.g. uterine rupture). Observational studies (cohort studies), including different methods of cervical ripening, may be the best alternative. Studies could compare methods believed to provide effective induction of labour with low risk of serious harm, and report the outcomes listed in this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 179 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Unspecified 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 10%
Other 62 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 58%
Unspecified 29 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 14%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 12 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,199,491
of 13,568,805 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,969
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,211
of 268,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,568,805 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.