Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33847224›Full record

ArticleThe 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 Obstetricians2022

Identifying the effective components of a standardized labor induction protocol: secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial.

Rebecca F Hamm, Rinad Beidas, Sindhu K Srinivas, Lisa D Levine

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Among patients undergoing induction who reach active phase, does prolonged latent phase matter?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 · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca F HammDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2587-2054
Rinad BeidasDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sindhu K SrinivasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lisa D LevineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Health Research Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32HD007440 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BARNHART, KURT T · 1996 to 2020
$7.5M
WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENTK12HD001265 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Elizabeth A Howell · 1998 to 2026
$7.5M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001265NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveStandardized labor induction protocols utilizing evidence-based active management practices are associated with improved obstetric outcomes. However, these protocols are complex and include multiple components. We aimed to identify which of the individual components of an evidence-based labor induction protocol are most associated with reduced rates of cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. STUDY

designThis is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing time to delivery among four labor induction methods. All patients enrolled in the trial had their labor managed with a multidisciplinary-developed, evidence-based standardized labor induction protocol. For each patient's induction, we assessed adherence to seven components of the protocol. Primary outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity, and neonatal morbidity. Bivariate analyses assessed the association of each protocol component with each outcome. Multivariable logistic regression determined independent predictors of each outcome.

resultsThe 491 patients enrolled in the randomized trial were included in this analysis. For cesarean delivery, while adherence to four of the seven protocol components was associated with the outcome in bivariate analyses, only adherence to "cervical exams should be performed every 1-2 h in active labor" was associated with reduced cesarean rates when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity. For maternal morbidity, while adherence to "if misoprostol is utilized, it should not be continued beyond 6 doses or 24 h of use" was associated in bivariate analysis, it was no longer associated with the outcome in multivariable analysis. Finally, "cervical exams should be performed every 1-2 h in active labor" and "cervical exams should be performed every 2-4 h in latent labor" were associated with reduced neonatal morbidity both in bivariate analyses as well as when controlling for age, body mass index, and parity.

conclusionsWithin a standardized labor induction protocol, adherence to cervical exams every 1-2 h in active labor was associated with reduced cesarean rate, and adherence to cervical exams every 2-4 h in latent labor, as well as every 1-2 h in active labor is associated with reduced neonatal morbidity. Regular cervical examination during labor induction likely allows for intervention when cervical change is not made. This data warrants further investigation into the optimal frequency of cervical exams during labor induction. Furthermore, an understanding of which components of a complex, evidence-based labor induction protocol are most effective may be helpful for streamlining and education around this protocol as implementation occurs across diverse sites.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricMisoprostolCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLabor, InducedParityPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMisoprostolcesarean ratelabor inductionmaternal morbidityProtocol components

Identifiers

PMID33847224
PMCPMC8511352
OpenAlexW3152936921

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.