Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26615965›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2016

Elective induction of labour and maternal request: a national population-based study.

B Coulm, B Blondel, S Alexander, M Boulvain, C Le Ray

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Induction of labor and postpartum blood loss.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019
    Article
  7. Evidence-based Birth Attendance in Spain: PrivateInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

B CoulmINSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics (U1153), DHU Risk in Pregnancy, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.
B BlondelINSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics (U1153), DHU Risk in Pregnancy, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.
S AlexanderPerinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive Health Unit, Ecole de Santé Publique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
M BoulvainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
C Le RayINSERM UMR 1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Centre for Epidemiology and Statistics (U1153), DHU Risk in Pregnancy, Paris-Descartes University, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the rate of elective inductions in France and the proportion of them that were maternally requested, and to study the factors associated with elective inductions that were or were not requested by women.

designCross-sectional population-based study.

settingAll maternity units in France. POPULATION: About 14 681 women from the 2010 French National Perinatal Survey of a representative sample of births.

methodsInductions were classified as elective based on their indications and maternal and fetal characteristics, collected from medical records. Elective inductions requested by women were identified from the mother's postpartum interviews. Polytomous logistic regression analysis was used to study the determinants of inductions that were or were not maternally requested. Women with spontaneous labour served as the comparison group.

main outcome measureRate of elective inductions.

resultsThe induction rate was 22.6, 13.9% elective. Among elective inductions, 47.3% were requested by women. The characteristics of mothers, pregnancies, and maternity units were similar in both groups of elective inductions. The main associated factors were parity 2 or more [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-7.2 for maternally requested inductions and aOR of 1.8 (95% CI1.2-2.7) for unrequested inductions, compared with parity 0] and private hospital status [aOR 4.5 95% (CI 3.3-6.0) for maternally requested inductions and aOR 3.7 (95% CI 2.8-4.9) for inductions not requested by the mother]. We found no association between maternal social characteristics and type of elective induction.

conclusionParity and organisational factors appear to influence the decision about elective inductions. It would be interesting to determine how obstetricians and women make this decision and for what reasons. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: About 13.9% of inductions of labour were elective in France, 47.3% of these requested by women.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleFranceHumansLabor, InducedPatient PreferencePregnancyYoung AdultDeterminantselectiveFranceinduction of labourmaternal request

Identifiers

PMID26615965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.