ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2014
Trends in elective labor induction for six United States health plans, 2001-2007.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oxytocin administration for induction and augmentation of labour in polish maternity units - an observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
- Review of Evidence-Based Methods for Successful Labor Induction.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2021Review
- Are Essential Women's Healthcare Services Fully Covered? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Documents in Shanghai and New York City from 1978-2017.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Term cesarean breech delivery in the first pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for maternal and neonatal morbidity in the subsequent delivery: a national cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2020Article
- Benefits and risks of induction of labor at 39 or more weeks in uncomplicated nulliparous women: a retrospective, observational study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2019Article
- Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature.AJP reports · 2018Review
- Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Variations in childbirth interventions in high-income countries: protocol for a multinational cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo describe trends in labor induction, including elective induction, from 2001 to 2007 for six U.S. health plans and to examine the validity of induction measures derived from birth certificate and health plan data.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 339,123 deliveries at 35 weeks' gestation or greater. Linked health plan and birth certificate data provided information about induction, maternal medical conditions, and pregnancy complications. Induction was defined from diagnosis and procedure codes and birth certificate data and considered elective if no accepted indication was coded. We calculated induction prevalence across health plans and years. At four health plans, we reviewed medical records to validate induction measures.
resultsBased on electronic data, induction prevalence rose from 28% in 2001 to 32% in 2005, then declined to 29% in 2007. The trend was driven by changes in the prevalence of apparent elective induction, which rose from 11% in 2001 to 14% in 2005 and then declined to 11% in 2007. The trend was similar for subgroups by parity and gestational age. Elective induction prevalence varied considerably across plans. On review of 86 records, 36% of apparent elective inductions identified from electronic data were confirmed as valid.
conclusionsElective induction appeared to peak in 2005 and then decline. The decrease may reflect quality improvement initiatives or changes in policies, patient or provider attitudes, or coding practices. The low validation rate for measures of elective induction defined from electronic data has important implications for existing quality measures and for research studies examining induction's outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.