Dataset Information

Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As the number of indications for labour induction continue to increase, the focus has shifted to performing these procedures in an outpatient setting. This study aims to systematically review published data from randomized controlled trials that compare outpatient with inpatient labour induction, to ascertain the role of outpatient labour induction for low-risk pregnancies. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review wherein we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis Previews®, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported on maternal, fetal and resource-related outcomes following outpatient versus inpatient labour induction. Pooled incidences and mean differences were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the method of induction. RESULTS:Of the 588 records identified, 12 publications, representing nine independent randomized controlled trials conducted in Australia, Europe and North America, were included. These reported on 2615 cases of labour induction (1320 outpatients versus 1295 inpatients). Overall, apart from a higher number of suspicious fetal heart rate tracings [RR?=?1.43 (1.10, 1.86)] and a shorter mean length of hospital stay [MD?=?282.48?min (160.23, 404.73) shorter] in the outpatient group, there were no differences in delivery method, adverse outcomes or resource-use between the two arms. On subgroup analysis, when comparing the use of balloon catheters in both arms, those induced as outpatients had fewer caesarean deliveries [RR?=?0.52 (0.30, 0.90)], a shorter admission-to-delivery interval [MD?=?370.86?min (19.19, 722.54) shorter], and a shorter induction to delivery interval [MD?=?330.42?min (120.13, 540.71) shorter]. CONCLUSION:Outpatient labour induction in resource-rich settings is at least as effective and safe, in carefully selected patient populations, when compared with inpatient labour induction. Whether outpatient labour induction results in lower rates of caesarean deliveries needs to be explored further. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This systematic review was prospectively registered in Prospero ( CRD42019118049 ).

SUBMITTER: Dong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7325658 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dong Susan S Khan Maria M Hashimi Farahnosh F Chamy Caroline C D'Souza Rohan R

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20200630 1

<h4>Background</h4>As the number of indications for labour induction continue to increase, the focus has shifted to performing these procedures in an outpatient setting. This study aims to systematically review published data from randomized controlled trials that compare outpatient with inpatient labour induction, to ascertain the role of outpatient labour induction for low-risk pregnancies.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review wherein we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis Previews®, a ...[more]

PMID: 32605542

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.MethodsWomen with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N=101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n=50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n=51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.ResultsOPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p< .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p= .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p=.003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p< .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p=.001).ConclusionsOPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of prostaglandins used for labour induction.DesignSystematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysisData sourcesThe Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials (which incorporates the results of a broad generic search for all pregnancy and postpartum trials). Sources included are CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised clinical trials of prostaglandin or prostaglandin analogues used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction versus placebo or no treatment, alternative prostaglandin dose or administration, or a different type of prostaglandin. We included studies recruiting women with a viable fetus, but had no other restrictions relating to indication for labour induction or language of publication. Outcomes assessed were serious neonatal morbidity (trialist defined) or perinatal death; serious maternal morbidity (trialist defined) or death; vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, caesarean section, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes.Results280 randomised clinical trials were included (48 068 women) in the review. Maternal and neonatal mortality and serious morbidity were rarely reported and are summarized narratively. Unresolved inconsistency was observed for the hyperstimulation outcome. Relative to placebo, the odds of failing to achieve a vaginal delivery were lowest for vaginal misoprostol (≥50 µg) (odds ratio 0.06 (95% credible interval 0.02 to 0.12)), with a 39% absolute probability of event (95% credible interval 1% to 94%). Compared with placebo, odds of caesarean section were lowest for titrated oral misoprostol solution (<50 µg) (odds ratio 0.65 (0.49 to 0.83)), with an absolute probability of event of 15% (3% to 40%).ConclusionsLow dose(<50 µg) titrated oral misoprostol solution had the lowest probability of caesarean section, whereas vaginal misprostol (≥50 µg) had the highest probability of achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 hours. These findings have important implications for a series of current national and international guidelines for induction of labour and future research in this area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2013:CRD42013005116.

Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic prescribing is common worldwide. There are several original studies about antibiotic prescribing in the healthcare setting of Iran reporting different levels of prescribing. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in both inpatient and outpatient settings in Iran, an example of a developing country.MethodsTo identify published studies on antibiotic prescribing, databases such as ISI, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Electronic Persian were searched in Iran till January 2020. Eligible studies were those analyzing original data on the prescription and use of antibiotics in outpatient or inpatient settings in Iran. Moreover, all studies that used an intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using self-administered quality assessment criteria. The meta-analysis of prevalence of antibiotic prescribing was conducted based on the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines. To calculate pooled rates, the random-effects model was used.ResultsA total of 54 studies (39 outpatients and 15 inpatients) were included in this study. The median of antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient and inpatient settings accounted for 45.25% and 68.2% of patients, respectively. The results of meta-analysis also showed that the antibiotic prescribing accounted for 45% of prescriptions in outpatient settings and 39.5%, 66%, and 75.3% of patients in all wards, pediatrics wards, and ICU wards of inpatient settings, respectively. The most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes in outpatient settings were penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides, while in inpatient settings, these were cephalosporins, penicillins, and carbapenems. There were seven studies using interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing pattern. It should be mentioned that intervention in a study had a statistically significant effect on improving antibiotic prescribing (p < .05).ConclusionPrevalence of antibiotic prescribing in Iran is high. Our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices. It seems that developing a national plan to improve antibiotic prescribing is necessary.

Project description:ImportanceArthroscopic meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures. The optimal postoperative approach remains debated.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes associated with home-based rehabilitation programs (HBP) vs standard inpatient and/or outpatient supervised physical therapy (IOP) following arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy (AM).Data sourcesA systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases on March 15, 2021. The included studies were published from 1982 to 2019.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of patients treated with HBP vs IOP after AM were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently screened and extracted by 2 authors according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model; when an I2 < 25% was observed, the fixed-effect model was used. The Hartung-Knapp correction was applied.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the Lysholm score (scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better knee function) and secondary outcomes were subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, knee extension and flexion, thigh girth, horizontal and vertical hop test, and days to return to work, as indicated in the PROSPERO registration. Outcomes were measured in the short-term (ranging from 28 to 50 days) and the midterm (6 months).ResultsIn this meta-analysis of 8 RCTs including 434 patients, IOP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in Lysholm score compared with HBP, with a mean difference of -8.64 points (95% CI, -15.14 to -2.13 points; P = .02) between the 2 approached, but the sensitivity analysis showed no difference. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was detected at midterm for Lysholm score, with a mean difference between groups of -4.78 points (95% CI, -9.98 to 0.42 points; P = .07). HBP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in thigh girth, with a mean difference between groups of 1.38 cm (95% CI, 0.27 to 2.48 cm; P = .01), whereas IOP was associated with a better short-term vertical hop score, with a mean difference between groups of -3.25 cm (95% CI, -6.20 to -0.29 cm; P = .03). No differences were found for all the other secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceNo intervention was found to be superior in terms of physical and functional outcomes as well as work-related and patient-reported outcomes, both at short-term and midterm follow-up. Overall, these results suggest that HBP may be an effective management approach after AM in the general population.

Project description:BackgroundOutpatient autologous stem cell transplantations (ASCTs) in multiple myeloma and lymphoma patients have been shown to reduce the overall costs and improve the quality of life relative to inpatient ASCTs. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed with the aim of comprehensively comparing the risk of febrile neutropenia developing in ASCT outpatients and inpatients who have multiple myeloma or lymphoma.MethodsTo be eligible for the meta-analysis, studies needed to be either randomized, controlled studies or cohort studies. They also need to have two groups of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who underwent ASCT, with the treatment being provided to one group in an outpatient setting and to the other on an inpatient basis. The studies had to report our primary outcome of interest, the rate of febrile neutropenia after stem cell infusion, for both groups. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool the effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals of each study.ResultsFrom 9 eligible studies, a total of 1940 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Contrary to conventional concerns, the patients who underwent the outpatient ASCT had a significantly lower risk of developing febrile neutropenia than those admitted for ASCT, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.65; p?<?0.0001; I2?=?52%). The risk of septicemia was also significantly lower for the outpatients than the inpatients, with a pooled OR of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97; p?=?0.04; I2?=?23%). Additional analyses found that the odds of having grade 2-3 mucositis and transplant-related mortality were numerically lower for the outpatient group, although the pooled result was not statistically significant. The odds of surviving at 2-3?years was also numerically higher for the ASCT outpatients, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionsThis study found a significantly lower odds of developing febrile neutropenia and septicemia among patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma who received an outpatient ASCT than among those who had an inpatient ASCT.

Dataset Information

Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets