Trial reportActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
Neonatal and maternal outcomes at early vs. full term following induction of labor; A secondary analysis of the OBLIGE randomized trial.
Trial report in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Neonatal and maternal outcomes at early vs. full term following induction of labor; A secondary analysis of the OBLIGE randomized trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Trial
- Screening for Term Preeclampsia at 35 to 37 Weeks of Gestation: A Single-Center Experience.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Risk factors for mortality and severe morbidity in fetuses with normal late third-trimester scan: population-based cohort study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025Article
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Labor Induction in Parous Women in a Selected Hospital in Sudan.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBirth at early term (37 MATERIAL AND
methodsAn observational cohort study as a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 1087 New Zealand women with a planned IOL ≥37
resultsAmong the 1087 participants, 266 had IOL at early term, 480 at full term, and 341 at late term. Babies born following IOL at early term had increased odds for NICU admission for >4 hours (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.16, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.16-4.05), compared with full term. Women having IOL at early term had no difference in emergency cesarean rates but had an increased need for a second induction method (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.15-2.51) and spent 4 h longer from start of IOL to birth (Hodges-Lehmann estimator 4.10, 95% CI 1.33-6.95) compared with those with IOL at full term.
conclusionsIOL for a non-urgent indication at early term was associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes and no benefits compared with IOL at full term. These findings support international guidelines to avoid IOL before 39 GW unless there is an evidence-based indication for earlier planned birth and will help inform women and clinicians in their decision-making about timing of 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.