↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007701.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua P Vogel, Alfred O Osoti, Anthony J Kelly, Stefania Livio, Jane E Norman, Zarko Alfirevic

Abstract

Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of methods. For women at low risk of pregnancy complications, some methods of induction of labour or cervical ripening may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour or ripen the cervix in outpatient settings in terms of effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed evidence using the GRADE approach. This updated review included 34 studies of 11 different methods for labour induction with 5003 randomised women, where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, amniotomy and acupuncture, compared with placebo, no treatment, or routine care. Trials generally recruited healthy women with a term pregnancy. The risk of bias was mostly low or unclear, however, in 16 trials blinding was unclear or not attempted. In general, limited data were available on the review's main and additional outcomes. Evidence was graded low to moderate quality. 1. Vaginal PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (5 studies)Fewer women in the vaginal PGE₂ group needed additional induction agents to induce labour, however, confidence intervals were wide (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99; 150 women; 2 trials). There were no clear differences between groups in uterine hyperstimulation (with or without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes) (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24; 244 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; 288 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03; 230 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services or maternal or caregiver satisfaction. Serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths were not reported. 2. Intracervical PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (7 studies) There was no clear difference between women receiving intracervical PGE₂ and no treatment or placebo in terms of need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32; 445 women; 3 studies), vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 43 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation (with FHR changes) (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25; 488 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 674 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), or babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05; 215 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no uterine ruptures in either the PGE₂ group or placebo group.There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, or serious morbidity or neonatal morbidity or perinatal death. 3. Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (4 studies)One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups; there were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; 77 infants; 1 study; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups in rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00; 265 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 325 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), and babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47; 325 infants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24, 48 or 72 hours, additional induction agents required, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, serious maternal, and other neonatal, morbidity or death.No substantive differences were found for other comparisons. One small study found that women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; 87 women; 1 study) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; 127 women; 2 studies). Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 311 women; 4 studies; I² = 74%); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. One trial each of acupuncture and outpatient amniotomy were included, but few review outcomes were reported. Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible and important adverse events seem rare, however, in general there is insufficient evidence to detect differences. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents administered on an outpatient basis reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth.We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings, or their cost effectiveness. Further studies where various women-friendly outpatient protocols are compared head-to-head are required. As part of such work, women should be consulted on what sort of management they would prefer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 21%
Unspecified 26 20%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 37%
Unspecified 32 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 14 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,819,230
of 13,309,886 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,845
of 10,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,005
of 267,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,886 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.