OBJECTIVE: To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56-1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18). CONCLUSION: Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56-1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18). CONCLUSION: Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C E Pennell; J J Henderson; M J O'Neill; S McChlery; S McCleery; D A Doherty; J E Dickinson Journal: BJOG Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 6.531