ArticleInternational journal of innovative research in medical science2023
Obstetric Outcome of Induction of Labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria: A Five-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in International journal of innovative research in medical science, 2023. 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
17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Induction of labour has remained one of the most valuable interventions in obstetric practice. Over the years, the proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has been on a steady increase. The significance to obstetrics practice as well as its maternal and perinatal outcomes are sacrosanct, hence the need for its periodic review. Objective: To determine the obstetric outcomes of induction of labour. Methods: A five-year retrospective study of all cases of induction of labour at the maternity unit of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (NAUTH), Nnewi, Nigeria between January 1st 2017 and 31st December 2021. The labour ward's records were assessed to determine the total number of women who had induction of labour during the study period. Women whose case files could be not retrieved were excluded. The folder numbers of the patients were extracted and their case files retrieved from the medical records department of the hospital. The primary outcomes measures were the indications and the methods of induction of labour, while the secondary outcome measures were the mode of delivery, cause of failed induction, and the perinatal outcome. Data were obtained using proformas and analysed using statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS) version 26.0 IBM corporation. Result: A total of 3,638 deliveries were taken during the period under review and 168 patients had induction of labour giving an overall prevalence of 4.6% (46/1000 deliveries). Induction of labour was successful in 71.2% of cases. Misoprostol was used in 90.4% of cases as an induction agent. The commonest indication for induction of labour was postdate pregnancy (53.8%). Failed induction was due to fetal distress, poor progress of labour from cephalopelvic disproportion/malposition and failed cervical ripening. In about 72% of deliveries, there was good perinatal outcome, 10.3% of babies had moderate to severe asphyxia while 1.3% had neonatal death. Conclusion: Induction of labour is a safe and beneficial procedure in obstetrics. However, it can be associated with adverse obstetric outcomes.
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.