The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundDespite a lack of high-quality evidence, the use of 'non-indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world.

objectivesTo assess published associations between the regular use of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' term labour induction (hereinafter 'preventive induction') and rates of common adverse birth outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were identified that compared term birth outcomes following either the current standard approach with its emphasis on the expectant management of intermediate-level risk or the regular use of preventive induction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA IC12. MAIN

resultsPregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (n = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (n = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7% versus 14.4%; relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50; I(2) P = 0.21), a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (2.9% versus 6.5%; relative risk 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65; I(2) P = 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1).

conclusionsThe regular use of preventive induction, as compared with the current standard approach, was associated with a more favourable pattern of birth outcomes. Other recently published meta-analyses have also determined that certain types of 'non-indicated' labour induction are beneficial. Accordingly, the current broad restrictions on 'non-indicated' labour induction should be reconsidered. Adequately powered multi-site randomised clinical trials are needed to definitively study the risks and benefits of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' (i.e. 'preventive') term labour induction.