MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4239106624 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003246

Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour

2001· review· en· W4239106624 sur OpenAlexaff
Anthony J Kelly, Brenda P Tan

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineOxytocinPlaceboMisoprostolChildbirthLabor inductionObstetricsRipeningPregnancyAbortionInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oxytocin is the commonest induction agent used worldwide. It has been used alone, in combination with amniotomy or following cervical ripening with other pharmacological or non-pharmacological methods. Prior to the introduction of prostaglandin agents oxytocin was used as a cervical ripening agent as well. In developed countries oxytocin alone is more commonly used in the presence of ruptured membranes whether spontaneous or artificial. In developing countries where the incidence of HIV is high, delaying amniotomy in labour reduces vertical transmission rates and hence the use of oxytocin with intact membranes warrants further investigation. This review will address the use of oxytocin alone for induction of labour. Amniotomy alone or oxytocin with amniotomy for induction of labour has been reviewed elsewhere in the Cochrane Library. Trials which consider concomitant administration of oxytocin and amniotomy will not be considered. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using a standardised methodology. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of oxytocin alone for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with other methods of induction of labour or placebo/no treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant papers. Last searched: May 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: The criteria for inclusion included the following: (1) clinical trials comparing vaginal prostaglandins used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods; (2) random allocation to the treatment or control group; (3) adequate allocation concealment; (4) violations of allocated management not sufficient to materially affect conclusions; (5) clinically meaningful outcome measures reported; (6) data available for analysis according to the random allocation; (7) missing data insufficient to materially affect the conclusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction. The initial data extraction was done centrally, and incorporated into a series of primary reviews arranged by methods of induction of labour, following a standardised methodology. The data is to be extracted from the primary reviews into a series of secondary reviews, arranged by category of woman. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 110 trials were considered; 52 have been excluded and 58 included examining a total of 11,129 women. Comparing oxytocin alone with expectant management: Oxytocin alone reduced the rate of unsuccessful vaginal delivery within 24 hours when compared with expectant management (8.3% versus 54%, relative risk (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10,0.25) but the caesarean section rate was increased (10.4% versus 8.9%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01,1.36). This increase in caesarean section rate was not apparent in the subgroup analyses. Women were less likely to be unsatisfied with induction rather than expectant management, in the one trial reporting this outcome (5.5% versus 13.7%, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33, 0.56). Comparing oxytocin alone with vaginal prostaglandins: Oxytocin alone was associated with an increase in unsuccessful vaginal delivery within 24 hours (52% versus 28%, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.41, 2.43), irrespective of membrane status, but there was no difference in caesarean section rates (11.4% versus 10%, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.33). Comparing oxytocin alone with intracervical prostaglandins: Oxytocin alone was associated with an increase in unsuccessful vaginal delivery within 24 hours when compared with intracervical PGE2 (51% versus 35%, RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12,1.99). For all women with an unfavourable cervix regardless of membrane status, the caesarean section rates were increased (19.0% versus 13.1%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11, 1.82). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Overall, comparison of oxytocin alone with either intravaginal or intracervical PGE2 reveals that the prostaglandin agents probably overall have more benefits than oxytocin alone. The amount of information relating to specific clinical subgroups is limited, especially with respect to women with intact membranes. Comparison of oxytocin alone to vaginal PGE2 in women with ruptured membranes reveals that both interventions are probably equally efficacious with each having some advantages and disadvantages over the others. With respect to current practice in women with ruptured membranes induction can be recommended by either method and in women with intact membranes there is insufficient information to make firm recommendations.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,265
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0190,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,156
Tête enseignante GPT0,394
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations71
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207