Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40156636›Full record

Observational studyArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025

PROM at term: when might be the best time to induce labour? A retrospective analysis.

Teresa Starrach, Lucia Ehmann, Hannah Volkmann, Andreas Flemmer, Anna Hester, Eileen Tremmel, Susanne Beyer, Linda Hertlein, Christoph Hübener, Roman Hornung and 3 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Teresa Starrach *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Lucia Ehmann *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. lucia.ehmann@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Hannah VolkmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Andreas FlemmerDepartment of Neonatology, Dr. Von Hauner Children's Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anna HesterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Eileen TremmelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Susanne BeyerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Linda HertleinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christoph HübenerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Roman HornungInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas KolbenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Sven MahnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Johanna BüchelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Labor, InducedPremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesPuerperal InfectionAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinEndometritisFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLength of StayPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsC-Reactive ProteinChorioamnionitisExpectantInduction of labourPostpartum infection-triple IRisk of infectionTerm prelabour rupture of membranesTiming

Identifiers

PMID40156636
PMCPMC12176909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.