Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorPeel, Morgan D.
dc.contributor.authorCroll, Doortje M. R.
dc.contributor.authorKessler, Jørg
dc.contributor.authorHaugland, Birte
dc.contributor.authorPennell, Craig E.
dc.contributor.authorDickinson, Jan E.
dc.contributor.authorSalim, Raed
dc.contributor.authorZafran, Noah
dc.contributor.authorPalmer, Kirsten R.
dc.contributor.authorMol, Ben W.
dc.contributor.authorLi, Wentao
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-13T13:34:45Z
dc.date.available2024-02-13T13:34:45Z
dc.date.created2023-09-05T15:15:38Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn0001-6349
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3117337
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Evidence 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 methods A 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. Results Of 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. Conclusions Single-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleDouble-vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2023 The Author(s)en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/aogs.14626
dc.identifier.cristin2172663
dc.source.journalActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavicaen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1440-1449en_US
dc.identifier.citationActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2023, 102 (11), 1440-1449.en_US
dc.source.volume102en_US
dc.source.issue11en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal