Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33290410›Full record

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.

Mårten Alkmark, Judit K J Keulen, Joep C Kortekaas, Christina Bergh, Jeroen van Dillen, Ruben G Duijnhoven, Henrik Hagberg, Ben Willem Mol, Mattias Molin, Joris A M van der Post and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Labor induction at 41Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Induction at 41 weeks: Are we overestimating the benefit?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 · 2025
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Mårten AlkmarkCentre of Perinatal Medicine & Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5648-3505
Judit K J KeulenAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0694-0637
Joep C KortekaasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5851-3728
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Science, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-7731
Jeroen van DillenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6958-572X
Ruben G DuijnhovenAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4784-4396
Henrik HagbergCentre of Perinatal Medicine & Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3962-1448
Ben Willem MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Mattias MolinStatistical Consulting Group, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Joris A M van der PostAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3311-2116
Sissel SaltvedtDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna-Karin WikströmDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ulla-Britt WennerholmCentre of Perinatal Medicine & Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-2226
Esteriek de MirandaAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0392-4626
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLSahlgrenska University Hospital · SERadboud University Nijmegen · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delivery, ObstetricLabor, InducedWatchful WaitingAdultFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant DeathInfant MortalityLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33290410
PMCPMC7723286
OpenAlexW3113005666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.