ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2019
Benefits and risks of induction of labor at 39 or more weeks in uncomplicated nulliparous women: a retrospective, observational study.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2019. 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.
- Assessment of different sonographic cervical measures to predict labor induction outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- The Association between Cervical Length and Successful Labor Induction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus protocol on physician-administered rescue boluses of labor analgesia.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2023Article
- Retrospective Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Induction of Childbirth in 4350 Women from a Single Center in Warsaw, Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Maternal and neonatal morbidities associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with induction of labor around term.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Proportion and Outcome of Induction of Labor Among Mothers Who Delivered in Teaching Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Comparing the effects of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and extra amniotic saline infusion on cervical ripening and induction of labor.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo critically compare the benefits and risks of labor induction versus spontaneous labor in uncomplicated nulliparous women at 39 or more weeks of gestation.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational study of 237 nulliparous women who were at 39 or more weeks of a singleton pregnancy with vertex presentation and intact membranes. We compared maternal outcomes including the Cesarean section rate and neonatal outcomes in the induced labor and spontaneous labor groups.
resultsAmong the 237 women, 199 delivered vaginally (84.0%). The spontaneous labor group and induced labor group had a similar incidence of Cesarean delivery (17.7% vs. 12.3%,
conclusionMaternal adverse outcomes of labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation were similar to those in a spontaneous labor group in uncomplicated nulliparous women. Neonatal adverse events were also similar between the groups. It may be acceptable to schedule labor induction as long as 7 days before the estimated date, even when the indication is only relative.
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.