ReviewF1000Research2019
Recent advances in the induction of labor.
Review in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- A Comparison of Synthetic Osmotic Dilators and Pharmacologic Agents for Cervical Ripening in Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of midwifery & women's healthPooled it
- Trial
- Interaction between time-of-day and oxytocin efficacy in mice and humans with and without gestational diabetes.Molecular metabolism · 2026Article
- Cervical Ultrasound Assessment vs Bishop Score in Predicting Labor Induction Outcomes Among Nulliparous Women.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Multivariate analysis of determinants and development of a predictive algorithm for successful labor induction in nulliparous women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Review
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mechanical and Pharmaceutical Methods of Labor Induction in Pregnant Women in Iran.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Prediction Model for Successful Induction of Labor by Fetal Middle Cerebral Artery Pulsatility Index and Obstetric Factors in Term Pregnancy: A Prospective Cohort Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2025Article
- Outcomes in low-risk patients before and after an institutional policy offering 39-week elective induction of labor.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2024Article
- Interaction between time-of-day and oxytocin efficacy in mice and humans with and without gestational diabetes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Induction of Labor Using Castor Oil Cocktail - an Analysis of Real-world Data.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2024Article
- Determinants of failure to progress within 2 weeks of delivery: results of a multivariable analysis approach.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Placental pathology and neonatal morbidity: exploring the impact of gestational age at birth.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Observational
- Article
- Assessment of different sonographic cervical measures to predict labor induction outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Influence factor analysis and prediction model of successful application of high-volume Foley Catheter for labor induction.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Is there a difference in labor patterns after induction with prostaglandins and double-balloon catheters?AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- The 300 versus 300 Study-Low Volume versus High Volume Single Balloon Catheter for Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rate of labor induction is steadily increasing and, in industrialized countries, approximately one out of four pregnant women has their labor induced. Induction of labor should be considered when the benefits of prompt vaginal delivery outweigh the maternal and/or fetal risks of waiting for the spontaneous onset of labor. However, this procedure is not free of risks, which include an increase in operative vaginal or caesarean delivery and excessive uterine activity with risk of fetal heart rate abnormalities. A search for "Induction of Labor" retrieves more than 18,000 citations from 1844 to the present day. The aim of this review is to summarize the controversies concerning the indications, the methods, and the tools for evaluating the success of the procedure, with an emphasis on the scientific evidence behind each.
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.