Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Outcomes by parity (nulliparous)

From: Double- versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis

Outcomes* Number of studies analysed Interventions Effect measure Pooled effect (95% CI) Q p-value I2- statistic p-value Sensitivity analysis
Double Single
caesarean delivery 5 [15,17-18,20–21] 294 301 RR 0.86 [0.56, 1.33] 0.02 65% 0.50 stable
placement difficulty/failure 2 [15,18] 146 149 RR 0.72 [0.15, 3.55] 0.57 0 0.69
spontaneous expulsion 1 [15] 39 39 RR 0.88 [0.70, 1.10] 0.27
insertion to delivery intervalA 4 [15,17-18,20] 249 251 MD 0.88 [− 0.43, 2.18] 0.59 0 0.19 stable
0.43 [−0.84, 1.71] 0.26 26% 0.50 stable
insertion to expulsion/removal interval 2 [15,17] 64 64 MD 0.88 [−0.00, 1.76] 0.38 0 0.05
expulsion to delivery interval 1 [21] 45 50 MD −8.00 [−16.35, 0.35] 0.06
Bishop score incrementC 3 [15,17,21] 109 114 MD 1.08 [0.38, 1.78] 0.11 56% 0.002 Unstable I
vaginal delivery within 24 h 3 [17–18,20] 210 212 RR 0.91 [0.75, 1.10] 0.19 40% 0.33 stable
normal vaginal deliveryD 4 [15,17-18,20] 249 251 RR 1.00 [0.78, 1.29] 0.17 58% 0.98 Unstable II
assisted vaginal deliveryD 2 [18,20] 185 187 RR 1.02 [0.65, 1.59] 0.56 0 0.94
analgesia usage 2 [18,20] 185 187 RR 1.06 [0.95, 1.19] 0.32 1% 0.28
maternal adverse events
 maternal infection 3 [18,20–21] 230 237 RR 1.16 [0.69, 1.95] 0.27 24% 0.58 stable
 postpartum haemorrhage 2 [15,18] 146 149 RR 1.00 [0.72, 1.40] 0.49 0 0.98
neonatal adverse events
 low Apgar score (< 7 at 5 min)E 2 [18,20] 185 187 RR 0.21 [0.01, 4.23] 0.31
 NICU admission 1 [18] 107 110 RR 0.74 [0.45, 1.22] 0.24
satisfactionF
 pain during the process 1 [15] 39 39 MD −0.40 [−1.69, 0.89] 0.54
 maternal total satisfaction 1 [15] 39 39 MD 0.47 [−0.42, 1.36] 0.30
  1. * Superscript notes (A-F) are the same as those for Table 4
  2. I: Excluding Hoppe 2015 [17], although heterogeneity disappeared, the effect remained (Q p-value, 0.46; I2, 0; p-value, 0.002). Excluding Solt 2009 [21], heterogeneity still existed, but the effect significance disappeared (Q p-value, 0.03; I2, 78%; p-value, 0.07)
  3. II: Results remained comparable, but heterogeneity disappeared after we excluded Hoppe 2015 [17] (Q p-value, 0.27; I2, 24%; p-value, 0.21)