Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37093603›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Analysis of Obstetric Outcomes by Hospital Location, Volume, and Teaching Status Associated With Non-Medically Indicated Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks.

Alyssa R Hersh, Kimberley A Bullard, Bharti Garg, Megha Arora, Brooke F Mischkot, Aaron B Caughey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alyssa R HershDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Kimberley A BullardDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Bharti GargDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Megha AroraDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Brooke F MischkotDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Aaron B CaugheyDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Oregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Non-medically indicated induction of labor has been demonstrated to potentially improve some obstetric outcomes, such as decreasing cesarean birth. It has been reported that rates of cesarean birth and other obstetric outcomes vary among hospitals with different characteristics. Objective: To assess whether obstetric outcomes differ between nulliparous individuals with low-risk pregnancies managed with non-medically indicated induction of labor compared with expectant management in different types of hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included non-medically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation compared with expectant management of singleton, nonanomalous, births in nulliparous women with low-risk pregnancies in California between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011. The initial analysis of these data was performed in 2021. Outcomes were assessed by 3 hospital characteristics: location (urban vs rural), obstetric volume, and teaching (academic vs community) status. Volume was categorized based on the average number of births per year and grouped into low (<1200 births per year), medium (1200-2399 births per year), and high (≥2400 births per year). Births with previous or planned cesarean delivery were excluded, and non-medically indicated induction of labor was defined as induction of labor without a specific medical indication. Testing with χ2 and multivariable logistic regression analyses was used for statistical comparisons with a cutoff level of P = .01. Exposure: Non-medically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks' gestation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cesarean birth, and numerous secondary perinatal outcomes were also assessed. Results: There were 455 044 births included in this study. When stratified by hospital variables, a number of sociodemographic characteristics were significantly different, such as race and ethnicity, age, body mass index, and insurance type. The adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of cesarean birth were significantly lower in all settings with induction of labor except for low-volume hospitals, in which there was no significant difference (aOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.09). Chorioamnionitis and postpartum hemorrhage were lower with induction of labor among nearly every hospital when stratified by hospital characteristics. Neonatal outcomes were improved in all settings with induction of labor compared with expectant management. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that non-medically indicated induction of labor may be associated with a lower rate of cesarean births and some maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in a range of hospital settings.

Indexed as

Labor, InducedLabor, ObstetricCesarean SectionFemaleHospitalsHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37093603
PMCPMC10126869
OpenAlexW4366821554

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.