ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2025
Standardized protocol for labor induction: a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2025. 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.
- Among patients undergoing induction who reach active phase, does prolonged latent phase matter?The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2025Article
- Standardization of labor induction management: A mixed-methods evaluation of the clinician perspective.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- The impact of implementing a standardized protocol for labor induction on obstetric disparities: Secondary analysis of a type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Audit and feedback is an effective implementation strategy to increase fidelity to a multi-component labor induction protocol designed to reduce obstetric inequities.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
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
Background: Cesarean delivery remains the most common obstetrical procedure with more than 250,000 patients in the US undergoing cesarean following labor induction annually. Here, we evaluated the impact of prospectively implementing a standardized labor induction protocol on cesarean delivery rates. Methods: This multi-site type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation study compared 2 years before (PRE) and 2 years after (POST) implementation of a standardized labor induction protocol at two hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System (2018-2022). The protocol included multiple components and recommended active management of labor induction, including frequent cervical examinations, amniotomy if cervical exam ≥4 cm, and interventions for labor dystocia. The primary effectiveness outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included labor length, chorioamnionitis, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. The primary implementation outcome was fidelity, defined as adherence to ≥75% of the protocol components among 8 individual components that could be evaluated discretely. All data was collected via individual chart review. Findings: 8509 patients were included (PRE: n = 4214, POST: n = 4295). Our population was of median age of 31 years interquartile range (IQR) [26-35], and 44.6% identified as Black, 40.1% as white, 6.9% as Asian, and 8.4% as other or unknown; 7.4% of the population identified as Latinx. There was no significant difference in cesarean delivery rate between the two time periods overall (PRE: 21.6% vs. POST: 21.8%, p = 0.85; adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.99 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.90-1.09]). There were no significant differences in labor length, chorioamnionitis, or composite neonatal morbidity. Maternal morbidity decreased PRE to POST (PRE: 9.3% vs. POST: 6.5%, p < 0.001; aRR 0.67 95% CI [0.58-0.79]). POST-implementation, inductions with fidelity to ≥75% of protocol components increased (PRE: 52.4% vs. POST: 59.6%, p < 0.001), evidenced by more frequent cervical examinations, earlier dilation at amniotomy, and increased labor dystocia management. Interpretation: Despite increasing standardized induction management, no significant difference in cesarean delivery was found. Funding: NICHD K23HD102523.
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.