Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour with oral misoprostol; a multicentre randomised-controlled trial

Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour with oral misoprostol; a multicentre randomised-controlled trial | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 31 January 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour with oral misoprostol; a multicentre randomised-controlled trial Authors : Austad FE 0000-0002-4732-7989 [email protected] , Jorge Kessler , Magnussen EB , Are Pripp , and Rossen J Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.173832310.04521463/v1 308 views 136 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Objective: To compare childbirth satisfaction and obstetrical outcomes with outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour (IOL). Design: Multicentre, randomised-controlled trial Setting: Eight hospitals in Norway. Population: A total of 283 women scheduled for IOL with single cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks, no previous uterine scar and low risk of complications by predefined criteria, were randomised to outpatient or inpatient setting, after stratification by parity. Methods: All women received 25ug oral misoprostol as primary induction agent, for up to 48 hours/12 tablets. If labour was not established, further IOL with secondary induction agents was continued in hospital for all women. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Experience with Induction Tool (EXIT) was used to assess childbirth satisfaction. Main outcome measures: Childbirth satisfaction. Secondary outcome measures: Obstetrical outcomes. Results: Of 283 women randomised, 152 women were assigned to outpatient and 131 to inpatient setting. Outpatient IOL resulted in a more positive childbirth experience (mean CEQ-score 3.1 (0.44) vs. 3.0 (0.45), p=0.01 with multiparous women reporting highest satisfaction (mean EXIT-score 3.6 (0.63) vs. 3.3 (0.61), p=0.03 and mean CEQ-score 3.3 (0.39) vs. 3.1 (0.43), p<0.01. In the outpatient group, 101 women (67%) were admitted to hospital due to contractions, 25 (28%) required further IOL. Obstetrical outcomes were alike and there were no cases of hyperstimulation in the latent phase or serious adverse events observed. Conclusion: Outpatient IOL with oral misoprostol resulted in higher childbirth satisfaction with similar obstetrical outcomes compared to inpatient IOL. This method should be an option to selected women. Supplementary Material File (figures.docx) Download 269.95 KB File (outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour with oral misoprostol.docx) Download 142.07 KB File (tables.docx) Download 29.72 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 31 January 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Collection BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Keywords general obstetrics labour: induction Authors Affiliations Austad FE 0000-0002-4732-7989 [email protected] Sorlandet sykehus HF View all articles by this author Jorge Kessler Universitetet i Bergen Klinisk institutt 2 View all articles by this author Magnussen EB St Olav's Hospital HF View all articles by this author Are Pripp Oslo University Hospital View all articles by this author Rossen J Sorlandet sykehus HF View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 308 views 136 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Austad FE, Jorge Kessler, Magnussen EB, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour with oral misoprostol; a multicentre randomised-controlled trial. Authorea . 31 January 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.173832310.04521463/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.173832310.04521463/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ff45bd0f8aa41e2',t:'MTc3OTM3NDY2MQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();