Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30786997›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial.

Judit Kj Keulen, Aafke Bruinsma, Joep C Kortekaas, Jeroen van Dillen, Patrick Mm Bossuyt, Martijn A Oudijk, Ruben G Duijnhoven, Anton H van Kaam, Frank Pha Vandenbussche, Joris Am van der Post and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Timing of Term Births and Associated Mortality Risks: Ecological Analysis Across 28 European Countries.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Judit Kj KeulenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Aafke BruinsmaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Joep C KortekaasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jeroen van DillenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Patrick Mm BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn A OudijkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ruben G DuijnhovenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Anton H van KaamDepartment of Neonatology, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Frank Pha VandenbusscheDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Joris Am van der PostDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ben Willem MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Esteriek de MirandaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands e.demiranda@amc.uva.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0392-4626
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLEmma Kinderziekenhuis · NLMonash University · AUUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in low risk women.

designOpen label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

setting123 primary care midwifery practices and 45 hospitals (secondary care) in the Netherlands, 2012-16.

participants1801 low risk women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: randomised to induction (n=900) or to expectant management until 42 weeks (n=901).

interventionsInduction at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks with induction if necessary. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity (Apgar score <7 at five minutes, arterial pH <7.05, meconium aspiration syndrome, plexus brachialis injury, intracranial haemorrhage, and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Secondary outcomes included maternal outcomes and mode of delivery. The null hypothesis that expectant management is inferior to induction was tested with a non-inferiority margin of 2%.

resultsMedian gestational age at delivery was 41 weeks+0 days (interquartile range 41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+1 day) for the induction group and 41 weeks+2 days (41 weeks+0 days-41 weeks+5 days) for the expectant management group. The primary outcome was analysed for both the intention-to-treat population and the per protocol population. In the induction group, 15/900 (1.7%) women had an adverse perinatal outcome versus 28/901 (3.1%) in the expectant management group (absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval -2.9% to 0.0%, P=0.22 for non-inferiority). 11 (1.2%) infants in the induction group and 23 (2.6%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <7 at five minutes (relative risk (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.98). No infants in the induction group and three (0.3%) in the expectant management group had an Apgar score <4 at five minutes. One fetal death (0.1%) occurred in the induction group and two (0.2%) in the expectant management group. No neonatal deaths occurred. 3 (0.3%) neonates in the induction group versus 8 (0.9%) in the expectant management group were admitted to an NICU (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.41). No significant difference was found in composite adverse maternal outcomes (induction n=122 (13.6%)

conclusionsThis study could not show non-inferiority of expectant management compared with induction of labour in women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks; instead a significant difference of 1.4% was found for risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in favour of induction, although the chances of a good perinatal outcome were high with both strategies and the incidence of perinatal mortality, Apgar score <4 at five minutes, and NICU admission low.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR3431.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrachial PlexusCesarean SectionFemaleFetal DeathGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant MortalityIntensive Care Units, NeonatalIntracranial HemorrhagesLabor, InducedLabor, ObstetricMeconium Aspiration SyndromeNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID30786997
PMCPMC6598648
OpenAlexW2915921451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.