INPATIENT VS OUTPATIENTS LABOR INDUCTION: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/qwdab862Keywords:
Labor induction, outpatient, inpatientAbstract
Background: Labor induction can take a long period, anywhere from a few hours to several days, especially in nulliparous women. Worldwide, the use of mechanical or pharmaceutical treatments for outpatient cervical ripening is becoming more and more common.
Aims: This systematic review is to review the comparison of outpatient with inpatient labor induction.
Methods: By comparing itself to the standards set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis (PRISMA) 2020, this study was able to show that it met all of the requirements. So, the experts were able to make sure that the study was as up-to-date as it was possible to be. For this search approach, publications that came out between 2014 and 2024 were taken into account. Several different online reference sources, like Pubmed and SAGEPUB, were used to do this. It was decided not to take into account review pieces, works that had already been published, or works that were only half done.
Result: In the PubMded database, the results of our search brought up 83 articles, whereas the results of our search on SAGEPUB brought up 605 articles, our search on SCIENCE DIRECT brought up 470 articles. The results of the search conducted for the last year of 2014 yielded a total 17 articles for PubMed, 155 articles for SAGEPUB and 122 articles for SCIENCE DIRECT. In the end, we compiled a total of 8 papers, 4 of which came from PubMed, 2 of which came from SAGEPUB and 2 of which came from SCIENCE DIRECT. We included eight research that met the criteria.
Conclusion: In summary, in modern obstetrics, when labor is being induced in an increasing percentage of pregnancies, outpatient induction for low-risk women offers a safe, practical, and successful alternative to hospital induction. This is especially true in places with abundant resources. It should be given more widespread consideration.
References
Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadsi A, Dagklis T. Induction of Labor: An Overview of Guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020;75(1):61–72.
Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. Vol. 8, F1000Research. F1000 Research Ltd; 2019.
Dong S, Khan M, Hashimi F, Chamy C, D’Souza R. Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 20, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. BioMed Central; 2020.
Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: A pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 May 28;15(1).
Hallén N, Amini M, Wide-Swensson D, Herbst A. Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 May 1;102(5):605–11.
Hamdan M, Shuhaina S, Hong JGS, Vallikkannu N, Zaidi SN, Tan YP, et al. Outpatient vs inpatient Foley catheter induction of labor in multiparas with unripe cervixes: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(11):1977–85.
Howard K, Gerard K, Adelson P, Bryce R, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Women’s preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: A discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 30;14(1).
Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Flenady V, Kumar S. Induction of labour using prostaglandin E2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2019;127(5):571–9.
Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: A randomized trial. EJOG. 2017;210:1–6.
Wise MR, Thompson JMD, Battin M, McDougall J. Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labor: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;
Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM, Edwards RK. Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Parous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(1):94–101.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Licensing
Ninety Nine Publication publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This licensing allows for any use of the work, provided the original author(s) and source are credited, thereby facilitating the free exchange and use of research for the advancement of knowledge.
Detailed Licensing Terms
Attribution (BY): Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses them or their use.
No Additional Restrictions: Users may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
