Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

  1. Anthony J Kelly1,*,
  2. Zarko Alfirevic2,
  3. Arpita Ghosh1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Published Online: 12 NOV 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 14 AUG 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007372.pub3


How to Cite

Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD007372. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007372.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brighton, UK

  2. 2

    The University of Liverpool, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Liverpool, UK

*Anthony J Kelly, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK. tony.kelly@bsuh.nhs.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 12 NOV 2013

SEARCH

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
  4. References to other published versions of this review
Biem 2003 {published data only}
  • Biem SRD, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Canada: JOGC 2003;25(1):23-31.
Ryan 1998 {published data only}
  • Ryan G, Oskamp M, Seaward PGR, Barrett J, Barrett H, O'Brien K, et al. Randomized controlled trial of inpatient vs. outpatient administration of prostaglandin E2, gel for induction of labour at term [SPO Abstract 303]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1998;178(1 Pt 2):S92.
Sciscione 2001 {published data only}
  • Pollock M, Maas B, Muench M, Sciscione A. Patient acceptance of outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening with the foley bulb. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;182(1 Pt 2):S136.
  • Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GHC. Transcervical foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;98:751-6.
Wilkinson 2012 {published data only}
  • Adelson P, Wedlock G, Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Turnbull D. A cost analysis of outpatient priming for induction of labour induction: Results from the outpatient priming for induction of labour trial (OPRA). Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2013;49 Suppl 2:27.
  • Turnbull D. A multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing outpatient and inpatient cervical priming with intravaginal prostaglandins for induction of labour. Australian Clinical Trials Register (http://www.actr.org/actr) (accessed 8 January 2009).
  • Turnbull D, Adelson P, Stamp G, Fereday J, Ryan P, Bryce R, et al. A two-centre randomised controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labour: Psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2012;48(Suppl 1):61.
  • Turnbull D, Oster C, Adelson P, Scalzi D, Grauenhorst S, Bryce R, et al. A two-center randomised controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labour: A qualitative examination confirming psychosocial benefit. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2013;49 Suppl 2:100.
  • Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Ryan P, et al. Two center RCT of outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening for induction of labour with PGE2. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;206(Suppl 1):S137.
  • Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Turnbull D. Clinical results of a randomized controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor with prostaglandin E2. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2013;49 Suppl 2:16-7.

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
  4. References to other published versions of this review
Henry 2011 {published data only}
  • Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy S, Sharpe V, Austin K, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient Prostin gel for cervical ripening: the FOG (Foley or Gel) trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2011;51:473-4.
  • Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy SK, Austin K, Welsh A, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth 2013;13:25.
  • Henry A, Reid R, Madan A, Tracy S, Sharpe V, Welsh A, et al. Satisfaction survey: outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient Prostin gel for cervical ripening. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2011;51:474.
Rijnders 2007 {published data only}
  • Rijnders MEB. Costs and effects of amniotomy at home for induction of post term pregnancy. Current Controlled Trials (http://controlled-trials.com) (accessed 15.02.2007).

Additional references

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
  4. References to other published versions of this review
Calder 1998
Curtis 1987
Gates 2005
  • Gates S. Methodological Guidelines. In: The Editorial Team. Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs)) 2005, Issue 2.
Higgins 2008
  • Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hofmeyr 2000
  • Hofmeyr GJ, Alfirevic Z, Kelly T, Kavanagh J, Thomas J, Brocklehurst P, et al. Methods for cervical ripening and labour induction in later pregnancy:generic protocol. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002074]
Hofmeyr 2009
  • Hofmeyr GJ, Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J, Neilson JP, et al. Methods for cervical ripening and labour induction in late pregnancy: generic protocol. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002074.pub2]
Kelly 2003
  • Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003101]
Kelly 2009a
  • Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Norman JE, Dowswell T. Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007701]
NHS 2007
  • Richardson A, Mmata C. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2005-06. London: National Statistics, The Information Centre, 2007.
NICE 2008
  • National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Induction of labour: Clinical Guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2008.
RevMan 2008 [Computer program]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
  • The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Turnbull 2009
  • Turnbull D. A multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing outpatient and inpatient cervical priming with intravaginal prostaglandins for induction of labour. Australian Clinical Trials Register (http://www.actr.org/actr) (accessed 8 January 2009).

References to other published versions of this review

  1. References to studies included in this review
  2. References to studies excluded from this review
  3. Additional references
  4. References to other published versions of this review
Kelly 2009b