ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Maternal and perinatal infectious morbidity in term prelabor rupture of membrane according to two induction of labor protocols.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial versus Spontaneous Rupture of Membranes after Balloon Ripening: Implications for Maternal Infectious Outcomes.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Article
- PROM at term: when might be the best time to induce labour? A retrospective analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe optimal labor-induction protocol in women with prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) is unknown. Whether the management of women with a previous cesarean delivery (CD) with PROM is different remains controversial. We investigated maternal and perinatal outcomes according to two induction protocols of 24 h vs. 12 h.
methodsIn July 2021, our protocol of induction of labor in term-PROM was extended from 12 h to 24 h post-PROM. We compared obstetrical and neonatal outcomes before and after the change. A subgroup analysis of women with previous CD was performed. Results were compared using a univariate analysis. A multivariable model was described to predict neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) and clinical chorioamnionitis.
resultsThe 24 h and 12 h ROM-to-induction protocol groups included 962 and 802 women, respectively. In the 24 h group, a higher proportion of women labored spontaneously (p < 0.001), the rate of chorioamnionitis was higher (p = 0.017), and the CD rate was similar. Admission to the NICU (p = 0.012), antibiotic administration (p = 0.003), and respiratory distress (p = 0.002) were also greater in the 24 h induction group. Among women with a history of CD (n = 143), the need for oxytocin (p = 0.003) and delivery by CD (p = 0.016) were lower in the 24 vs. 12 h group.
conclusionOur results advocate shared decision-making in the expectant management of term-PROM. Women should be informed of the lower chance for induction and the higher risk of infections and neonatal complications with a 24-h induction approach. Longer expectant management in women with a previous CD resulted in significantly lower induction and CD rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38972882What 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.