ReviewCureus2024
Induction of Labor: A Narrative Review on Cost Efficiency in Maternity Care.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical and financial implications of induction of labor (IOL) in comparison to elective cesarean sections and expectant management are examined in this review. IOL is frequently used to avoid complications such as hypertensive disorders and stillbirth, but is can be expensive, particularly if a failed induction is followed by a cesarean. The cost-effectiveness of IOL varies based on factors such as gestational age, maternal obesity, and prior cesareans. Misoprostol has proven to be a more cost-effective induction method than oxytocin, with higher success rates for vaginal delivery and shorter hospital stays. However, spontaneous labor remains the most cost-efficient option, requiring fewer interventions and reducing costs. Membrane sweeping is one alternative that reduces costs and promotes unplanned labor. Although high-risk situations may necessitate elective IOL, routine use of these devices without a medical necessity raises expenditures without enhancing outcomes. It is recommended that healthcare professionals implement careful labor management techniques, utilizing cost-effective approaches whenever feasible, particularly in resource-limited settings. More randomized trials are required to evaluate the long-term effects of IOL on costs and health, thus shaping future labor management strategies.
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.