Dataset Information

The effect of dexamethasone on labor induction: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate the effect of dexamethasone administration on the interval between initiation of labor induction and active phase of labor.

Methods

The databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published up to June 27, 2021. Two types of articles were included: a) full-text articles published in English or any other languages, and b) Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Participants were primi- or multigravida women with term or post-term pregnancy. The intervention group received parenteral or extra-amniotic dexamethasone whereas the control group received normal saline or no treatment before initiation of labor induction. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Seventeen studies involving 1879 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Administration of dexamethasone reduced the interval between the initiation of labor induction and the beginning of active phase by about 70 min [MD: - 1.17 (- 1.37, - 1.00); P < 0.00001]. Duration of the first stage of labor in the dexamethasone group was about 88 min shorter than that in the control. There were no maternal and fetal adverse effects.

Conclusions

Dexamethasone could significantly reduce the length of induction-active phase interval, and length of the first stage of labor, with no difference in maternal or fetal adverse effects.

SUBMITTER: Mohaghegh Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369774 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of hyoscine n-butylbromide in labor progress. METHODS:The databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published up to December 2019. Articles that published as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and full-text articles published in English or other languages were included and participants were primi or multigravida women who were in active phase of labor. The intervention included HBB compared to placebo (normal saline) that was used during active phase of labor. Pooled estimates were measured using the fixed or random effect model, while the overall effect was reported in a mean difference (MD). All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS:Twenty studies involving 3108 women were included in meta-analysis. Based on subgroup analysis by parity, use of HBB significantly reduced the duration of the first stage of labor in primigravida women (MD?=?-?57.73; 95% CI: [-?61.48, -?53.60]) and in multigravida women (MD?=?-?90.74; 95% CI: [-?97.24, -?84.24]). Administering HBB could reduce the second stages of labor in primigravidas and multigravidas about 6?min and 4?min respectively. Also, HBB reduced the duration of the third stage of labor in multigravidas about 3?min. APGAR score at one and 5 min after birth was not affected. The main maternal adverse effect was tachycardia and dry mouth. Labor duration in studies in which the participants were primi-and multigravida was not presented based on separate parities except for four papers, and the route of HBB administration was not the same across all studies. CONCLUSIONS:Although, the effect of HBB was minimal when multigravidas and primigravidas women were considered together, the HBB was clinically effective in primigravida and multigravida women for shortening the first and the second stages of labor. Also, HBB could reduce the length of the third stage of labor in multigravidas.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data.Material and methodsA search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective.ResultsOf the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15-2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low-certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups.ConclusionsSingle-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundInduction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric approach to start or encourage uterine contractions to achieve a vaginal birth. It is recommended when continuing the pregnancy may be more dangerous for the mother or baby. Different ultrasonographic measures, such as cervical length, have been investigated as possible predictors of the outcomes of IOL. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the accuracy of ultrasound measurements in anticipating successful IOL.MethodsThe study conducted a thorough search on three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) until 04 March 2023, to find clinical studies published in English that reported different sonographic cervical measures and their ability to predict IOL outcomes. The chosen studies were stratified based on the type of indicator reported, and a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the best indicator for both successful and failed induction. The risk of bias and concerns about the applicability of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) method.ResultsThis study analyzed 57 studies with 9,338 patients. Cervical length is moderately effective in predicting successful IOL, with pooled sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) of 0.67 and 0.70, respectively. However, cervical length had a pooled SN and SP of 0.70 and 0.61 for predicting failed IOL. The posterior cervical angle was found to have a higher pooled SN and SP of 0.79 and 0.73 for predicting successful IOL. Fetal head-perineum distance demonstrated moderate accuracy with a pooled SN, SP, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve of 0.58, 0.66, 1.95, 0.36, 5.33, and 0.9992, respectively, for predicting successful IOL.ConclusionsFetal head-perineum distance was the most effective predictor for successful IOL compared to cervical length, which only had a moderate predictive ability. Shortening of cervical length was not a useful indicator for successful IOL. On the other hand, the posterior cervical angle was the most reliable factor for predicting failed induction. The study's findings can aid in developing more effective management strategies for IOL.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Induction of labor occurs in greater than 22% of all pregnancies in the United States. Previous studies have shown that misoprostol is more effective for induction than oxytocin or dinoprostone alone. The World Health Organization recommends vaginal misoprostol 25mcg every 6 hours and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends 25mcg vaginal misoprostol every three to 6 hours. Although route of administration and dosage of misoprostol has been extensively studied, little is known about the optimal dosing interval of vaginal misoprostol. METHODS:The primary objective of this study is to determine the effect of delayed vaginal misoprostol dosing, defined as any interval longer than 4.5 h, on time to vaginal delivery. Our hypothesis is that the routine dosing interval of 4 hours shortens times to vaginal delivery compared to delayed dosing, even when adjusted for the time of delay. Secondary objectives include the effect of delayed vaginal misoprostol dosing on cesarean section rate, operative vaginal delivery rate, maternal outcomes, and neonatal outcomes. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 323 inductions of labor at one academic institution. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 h. The group who received all doses of misoprostol within a 4.5 h dosing window (Routine Dosing Interval Group) was compared with the group who had any dosing deviation (Delayed Dosing Interval Group). RESULTS:Of 133 included patients, 64 subjects received routine interval dosing and 69 subjects received delayed interval dosing. The vaginal delivery rates within 24 h were 56% (36/64) and 20% (14/69), respectively (P < 10- 4). Spontaneous vaginal delivery rates were 86% (55/64) vs. 75% (52/69), respectively (P = .13). Kaplan Meier curves demonstrated statistically significant difference in time to vaginal delivery between groups, with a Cox Proportional Hazard ratio for routine dosing interval of 1.73 (P < 10- 5) unadjusted and 1.34 (P = .01) when adjusted for dosing delay. CONCLUSIONS:This retrospective study demonstrates a significant increase in delay-adjusted time to vaginal delivery when doses of vaginal misoprostol are delayed past 4.5 h.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety is commonly experienced during the delivery process and has shown to have adverse effects on maternal and infant health outcomes. Music interventions tend to reduce the effects of anxiety in diverse populations, are low cost, are easily accessible, and have high acceptability. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of music interventions in reducing anxiety levels among women during labor.MethodsSeven databases from inception to the end of December, 2018, without any language or time restriction including Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO, Airiti Library, and PerioPath: Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature were searched using key terms related to pregnancy, anxiety, and music. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of music during labor and measured anxiety levels as an outcome were included. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess anxiety reduction following a music intervention compared to that after placebo treatment.ResultsA total of 14 studies that investigated a total of 1,310 participants were included in this review. The meta-analyses indicated that those in the intervention group had a significant decrease in anxiety scores (standardized mean difference = -2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-3.29 to -1.52], p < 0.001; I 2 = 97.66%), heart rate (HR) (difference in means = -3.04 beats/min, 95% CI [-4.79 to -1.29] beats/min, p = 0.001; I 2 = 0.00%), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (difference in means = -3.71 mmHg, 95% CI [-7.07 to -0.35] mmHg, p = 0.031; I 2 = 58.47%), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (difference in means = -3.54 mmHg, 95% CI [-5.27 to -1.81] mmHg, p < 0.001; I 2 = 0.00%) as compared to the women in the control group.ConclusionsMusic interventions may decrease anxiety scores and physiological indexes related to anxiety (HR, SBP, and DBP). Music interventions may be a good non-pharmacological approach for decreasing anxiety levels during labor.