ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2016
Term elective induction of labour and perinatal outcomes in obese women: retrospective cohort study.
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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Maternal Labor-Related Complications and Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks of Gestation vs Expectant Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2019Pooled it
- Differences in Factors Associated With Preterm and Term Stillbirth: A Secondary Cohort Analysis of the DESiGN Trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- Rate of cesarean delivery among patients with class III obesity at term based on body mass index: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index, Diabetes Status, and Gestational Age-Specific Stillbirth Risk: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Obesity at term: What to consider? How to deliver?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Analysis of Obstetric Outcomes by Hospital Location, Volume, and Teaching Status Associated With Non-Medically Indicated Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Time of delivery among low-risk women at 37-42 weeks of gestation and risks of stillbirth and infant mortality, and long-term neurological morbidity.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2022Article
- Induction of labour at 39 weeks versus expectant management in low-risk obese women: study protocol for a randomised controlled study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Vaginal Dinoprostone Insert versus Cervical Ripening Balloon for Term Induction of Labor in Obese Nulliparas-A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Term Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery Risk among Obese Women with and without Comorbidities.American journal of perinatology · 2022Article
- Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management among Obese Women at ≥39 Weeks.American journal of perinatology · 2020Article
- Article
- Term Elective Induction of Labor and Pregnancy Outcomes Among Obese Women and Their Offspring.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
- Obesity in Pregnancy: Optimizing Outcomes for Mom and Baby.The Medical clinics of North America · 2018Review
- Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare perinatal outcomes between elective induction of labour (eIOL) and expectant management in obese women.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingDeliveries in California in 2007. POPULATION: Term, singleton, vertex, nonanomalous deliveries among obese women (n = 74 725).
methodsWomen who underwent eIOL at 37 weeks were compared with women who were expectantly managed at that gestational age. Similar comparisons were made at 38, 39, and 40 weeks. Results were stratified by parity. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression were used for statistical comparison.
main outcome measuresMethod of delivery, severe perineal lacerations, postpartum haemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus injury, respiratory distress syndrome.
resultsThe odds of caesarean delivery were lower among nulliparous women with eIOL at 37 weeks [odds ratio (OR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.90] and 39 weeks (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95) compared to expectant management. Among multiparous women with a prior vaginal delivery, eIOL at 37 (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24-0.64), 38 (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82), and 39 weeks (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) was associated with lower odds of caesarean. Additionally, eIOL at 38, 39, and 40 weeks was associated with lower odds of macrosomia. There were no differences in the odds of operative vaginal delivery, lacerations, brachial plexus injury or respiratory distress syndrome.
conclusionsIn obese women, term eIOL may decrease the risk of caesarean delivery, particularly in multiparas, without increasing the risks of other adverse outcomes when compared with expectant management.
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.