ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Change in timing of induction protocol in nulliparous women to optimise timing of birth: results from a single centre study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention. When planning IOL, especially in women at risk for complications at delivery, the aim should be for delivery to occur when senior staff are available to optimise safe care.
methodsA change in timing of IOL protocol at our institution was introduced in November 2018 aiming to increase births occurring "in-hours" defined as 08:00 to 20:00 h. This retrospective cohort study compares the odds of "in-hours" birth before and after the intervention and the association on birth outcomes. The study compared outcomes during the new IOL pathway period to a historical birth cohort from January to December 2017. Inclusion criteria were nulliparous women undergoing planned IOL at term with a cephalic singleton pregnancy. Logistic regression was used to compare odds of in-hours birth for the 2 periods with adjustment for maternal age at delivery, gestation, more than 2 cervical ripening agents required, undergoing IOL for post-dates pregnancy, mode of birth, whether or not IOL proceeded according to planned protocol and missing values using multiple imputation.
resultsThe rate of deliveries occurring in-hours were higher following the intervention; n = 118/285 (45.6%) pre-intervention versus n = 251/470 (53.4%) post-intervention; adjusted OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.07-2.01, p = 0.02). The percentage of caesarean sections (CS) occurring in-hours was significantly lower in the pre-intervention group n = 71/153 (28.3%) compared with the post intervention group = 35/132(46.4%) (p < 0.001)). The rate of CS was higher in the pre intervention n = 132/285(46.3%) compared with the post intervention group n = 153/470 (32.4%)).
conclusionsThe change in induction procedures was associated with a significantly higher rate of births occurring in-hours and a lower rate of overall of CS. This policy change led to a better pattern of timing of birth for nulliparous women undergoing IOL.
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.