Observational studyReproductive health2016
Preventive induction of labor for non-urgent indications at term and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Observational study in Reproductive health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neonatal and maternal outcomes at early vs. full term following induction of labor; A secondary analysis of the OBLIGE randomized trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Trial
- The adjunctive effect of a qigong (Baduanjin) intervention program on maternal and child health outcomes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Comparison of Modified Labor Induction Strategies for Pregnant Women at a Single Tertiary Center Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- An in-depth analysis of perinatal related mortality among women of South Asian ethnicity in Aotearoa New Zealand.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Induction of labor and postpartum blood loss.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labor (IOL) is a common practice in many parts of the world. However, the benefits and risks of preventive IOL for the mother and baby have yet to be critically assessed. This study is to investigate the effects of preventive IOL for non-urgent indications at term on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsIn this study, we applied a propensity score model to mimic a randomized clinical trial. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between women with preventive IOL at 37-39 weeks of gestation and women with ongoing pregnancy (expectant management). The subjects were from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a study of over 200,000 births from 19 hospitals across the US from 2002 to 2008.
resultsBoth nulliparous and multiparous women induced preventively for non-urgent indications at 37-38 weeks' gestation had lower rates of cesarean delivery compared to those delivered at later gestational weeks. However, preventive IOL was associated with increased risks of adverse neonatal outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.92 for nulliparas; aOR = 2.22, 1.32-3.74 for multiparas) and admission to NICU (aOR = 1.48, 0.99-2.20 for nulliparas; aOR = 2.08, 1.47-2.96 for multiparas) at 37 weeks' gestation. A longer maternal hospital stay was found among all women with preventive IOL.
conclusionsPreventive IOL for non-urgent indications may be associated with a decreased risk of cesarean delivery at early term but increased risks of adverse neonatal outcomes at 37 weeks. It also results in a longer hospital stay than 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.