SynthesisPLoS medicine2020
Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of intravenous hydration regimens in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Labor induction at 41Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Trial
- Women's lived experiences of induction of labour in late- and post-term pregnancy within the Swedish post-term induction study - a phenomenological study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2022Trial
- Women's childbirth experiences in the Swedish Post-term Induction Study (SWEPIS): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Trends in risk factors associated with the increasing labor induction rate: A nationwide register study in Finland 2005-2023.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of indication for labor induction on delivery outcomes: a five-year cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Induction of Labor in Late-Term and Post-Term Pregnancies Using Double-Balloon Catheter for Cervical Ripening: Predictors of Prolonged Labor Across Four Combined Augmentation Protocols in a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Labour induction and adverse perinatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Machine learning prediction models for mode of delivery in prolonged pregnancies in Sweden.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Induction at 41 weeks: Are we overestimating the benefit?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Article
- Timing of Delivery of Low-Risk Persons and the Risk of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Offspring: Sweden and British Columbia, Canada.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes and feasibility of implementing outpatient labor induction with misoprostol: A prospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Optimal timing for induction of labor in normotensive women: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Does induction of labor without a medical indication explain the overall increase in the induction rate: an observational study before and after the ARRIVE trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Observational
- A comparative analysis of methods of preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in Poland and in Germany (Part II): maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Maternal and perinatal outcomes after implementation of a more active management in late- and postterm pregnancies in Sweden: A population-based cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Maternity care providers' perspectives on late-term gestation management (LATE-study): A cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe risk of perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity increases gradually after 41 weeks of pregnancy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will improve perinatal outcomes. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on this subject. METHODS AND
findingsWe searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Individual participant data (IPD) were sought from eligible RCTs. Primary outcome was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Additional outcomes included neonatal admission, mode of delivery, perineal lacerations, and postpartum haemorrhage. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted for parity (nulliparous/multiparous), maternal age (<35/≥35 years), and body mass index (BMI) (<30/≥30). Aggregate data meta-analysis (MA) was performed to include data from RCTs for which IPD was not available. From 89 full-text articles, we identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5,161), and two contributed with IPD (n = 4,561). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding age, parity, BMI, and higher level of education. IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse perinatal outcome (0.4% [10/2,281] versus 1.0% [23/2,280]; relative risk [RR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] -57/10,000 [95% CI -106/10,000 to -8/10,000], I2 0%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 175 (95% CI 94 to 1,267). Perinatal deaths occurred in one (<0.1%) versus eight (0.4%) pregnancies (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.78], p-value 0.019, RD -31/10,000, [95% CI -56/10,000 to -5/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 326, [95% CI 177 to 2,014]) and admission to a neonatal care unit ≥4 days occurred in 1.1% (24/2,280) versus 1.9% (46/2,273), (RR 0.52 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.85], p-value 0.009, RD -97/10,000 [95% CI -169/10,000 to -26/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 103 [95% CI 59 to 385]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery (10.5% versus 10.7%; RR 0.98, [95% CI 0.83 to 1.16], p-value 0.81) nor in other important perinatal, delivery, and maternal outcomes. MA on aggregate data showed similar results. Prespecified subgroup analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01 for interaction) for parity, but not for maternal age or BMI. The risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.60], p-value 0.004, RD -127/10,000, [95% CI -204/10,000 to -50/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 79 [95% CI 49 to 201]) but not for multiparous women (0.6% [6/1,219] versus 0.3% [3/1,264]; RR 1.59 [95% CI 0.15 to 17.30], p-value 0.35, RD 27/10,000, [95% CI -29/10,000 to 84/10,000], I2 55%). A limitation of this IPD-MA was the risk of overestimation of the effect on perinatal mortality due to early stopping of the largest included trial for safety reasons after the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Furthermore, only two RCTs were eligible for the IPD-MA; thus, the possibility to assess severe adverse neonatal outcomes with few events was limited.
conclusionsIn this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with expectant management until 42 weeks without increasing the cesarean delivery rate. This benefit is shown only in nulliparous women, whereas for multiparous women, the incidence of mortality and morbidity was too low to demonstrate any effect. The magnitude of risk reduction of perinatal mortality remains uncertain. Women with pregnancies approaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020163174.
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.