Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38757059›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2024

Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: a multicentre prospective cohort study in India.

Tuck Seng Cheng, Farzana Zahir, Solomi V Carolin, Ashok Verma, Sereesha Rao, Saswati Sanyal Choudhury, Gitanjali Deka, Pranabika Mahanta, Swapna Kakoty, Robin Medhi and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Does induction or augmentation of labor increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage in pregnant women with anemia? A multicenter prospective cohort study in India.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
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

22 authors.

Tuck Seng ChengNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Farzana ZahirDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam, India.
Solomi V CarolinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makunda Christian Leprosy and General Hospital, Karimganj, Assam, India.
Ashok VermaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Government Medical College, Kangra, Tanda, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Sereesha RaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, India.
Saswati Sanyal ChoudhuryDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Gitanjali DekaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tezpur Medical College, Tezpur, India.
Pranabika MahantaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, India.
Swapna KakotyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India.
Robin MedhiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India.
Shakuntala ChhabraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, Maharashtra, India.
Anjali RaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Banaras Hindu University Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Amrit BoraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sonapur District Hospital, Assam, India.
Indrani RoyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nazareth Hospital, Shillong, Meghalaya, India.
Bina MinzDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sewa Bhawan Hospital Society, Chattisgarh, India.
Omesh Kumar BhartiState Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh, India.
Rupanjali DekaMaatHRI Project, Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Charles OpondoDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
David ChurchillDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, UK.
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer J KurinczukNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Manisha NairNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Guidelines for labour induction/augmentation involve evaluating maternal and fetal complications, and allowing informed decisions from pregnant women. This study aimed to comprehensively explore clinical and non-clinical factors influencing labour induction and augmentation in an Indian population. Methods: A prospective cohort study included 9305 pregnant women from 13 hospitals across India. Self-reported maternal socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, and maternal medical and obstetric histories from medical records were obtained at recruitment (≥28 weeks of gestation), and women were followed up within 48 h after childbirth. Maternal and fetal clinical information were classified based on guidelines into four groups of clinical factors: (i) ≥2 indications, (ii) one indication, (iii) no indication and (iv) contraindication. Associations of clinical and non-clinical factors (socio-demographic, healthcare utilisation and lifestyle related) with labour induction and augmentation were investigated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Findings: Over two-fifths (n = 3936, 42.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 41.3-43.3%) of the study population experienced labour induction and more than a quarter (n = 2537, 27.3%, 95% CI 26.4-28.2%) experienced augmentation. Compared with women with ≥2 indications, those with one (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.58) or no indication (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.28) or with contraindications (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) were less likely to be induced, adjusting for non-clinical characteristics. These associations were similar for labour augmentation. Notably, 34% of women who were induced or augmented did not have any clinical indication. Several maternal demographic (age at labour, parity and body mass index in early pregnancy), healthcare utilization (number of antenatal check-ups, duration of iron-folic acid supplementation and individuals managing childbirth) and socio-economic factors (religion, living below poverty line, maternal education and partner's occupation) were independently associated with labour induction and augmentation. Interpretation: Although decisions about induction and augmentation of labour in our study population in India were largely guided by clinical recommendations, we cannot ignore that more than a third of the women did not have an indication. Decisions could also be influenced by non-clinical factors which need further research. Funding: The MaatHRI platform is funded by a Medical Research Council Career Development Award (Grant Ref: MR/P022030/1) and a Transition Support Award (Grant Ref: MR/W029294/1).

Indexed as

Clinical conditionsLabour augmentationLabour inductionNon-clinical factors

Identifiers

PMID38757059
PMCPMC11097080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.