Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
PROM at term: when might be the best time to induce labour? A retrospective analysis.
Observational study in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal Geographic Residence and Obstetric Care Access in Relation to Delivery Method Among Individuals With Low-Risk Term Births in the United States.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Induction of Labour with Prostaglandins: Does Their Pro-Inflammatory Effect Mimic Chorioamnionitis After PROM?Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePROM after 37 weeks of gestation occurs in approximately 10% of pregnancies. When spontaneous onset of labour does not follow, induction is recommended to decrease the risk of infection for both mother and child. However, there is no clear consensus on whether induction before 24 h after PROM results in fewer complications compared to induction after > 24 h. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study analysed the outcomes of 3174 women with PROM admitted to the delivery room of LMU Women's Hospital between 10/2015 and 09/2020. We evaluated whether timing of labour induction was associated with maternal or newborn postpartum infection rates.
resultsComparing women with spontaneous onset of labour to those who underwent induction, no significant differences were found in maternal CRP or leukocyte levels, fever, endometritis, or Group B streptococcus colonization. However, intrapartum antibiotic therapy was significantly higher in the induction group. When the induction group was subdivided based on the interval from PROM to induction, no significant differences were observed in maternal infection parameters, need for antibiotics, postpartum length of hospital stay, or endometritis. For newborn infections, a significant difference in CRP levels was found, with higher levels in the groups with "induction < 12 h" and "> 24 h".
conclusionThe presented data suggests that waiting for spontaneous contractions within the first 24 h after PROM was not associated with the risk of infection if no initial signs for infection are present. However, beyond 24 h, the risk of infection increased. These findings support current recommendations regarding the timing of induction after PROM.
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.