ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2021
To Study the Maternal and Neonatal Outcome in Postdated Women Undergoing Induction of Labour Versus Spontaneous Labour.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Risk factors associated with birth asphyxia at Pumwani Maternity Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya: a case-control study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Dilapan S compared to foley balloon in preinduction cervical ripening-a noninferiority trial.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
- Obstetric Outcome of Induction of Labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria: A Five-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of innovative research in medical science · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnsuring safety of the mother along with the delivery of a healthy baby is the ultimate objective of all obstetricians. Labour induction is increasingly becoming one of the most common obstetric interventions in India. The aim of the study is to compare the feto-maternal outcome of induction of labour versus spontaneous labour in postdated women.
methodThis was a prospective observational comparative study. A total of 100 patients were selected, 50 who had induction of labour (study group) and 50 who had spontaneous labour (control). A structured proforma and partographs were used to obtain data.
result42% nulliparous women had induction of labour as compared to 29% multiparous women. The rate of cesarean section (58%) was substantially higher in those who had been induced. Non-progression of labour or failure of induction was the commonest indication for cesarean section. Post-partum haemorrhage was a complication found more commonly in the study group. Perineal tears were found more commonly in the control group.The mean birth weight of babies born to mothers who had been induced was significantly higher than that of those born to women who went into spontaneous labour. The APGAR scores were comparable in both groups. There was a higher incidence of hyperbilirubinemia in the study group.
conclusionAlthough induction of labour is a relatively safe procedure, some foetal and maternal risks were found to be higher in induced group than in those with spontaneous labour. Induction must be carried out only when necessary and not as a routine elective procedure.
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.