ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Body mass index and failed induction of labor: A cohort study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- Association between maternal BMI and success of labor induction with oral misoprostol: a cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Body mass index and failed induction of labor: A cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInduction of labor (IOL) is a common intervention in industrialized countries. Failed induction is frequently reported, yet there is no consensus on its definition. Since the primary goal of IOL is to initiate labor, progress to the active phase is a more relevant measure of success than the surrogate of caesarean birth. Previous studies on the influence of body mass index (BMI) on the risk of failed IOL are limited. Most rely on data from the United States and define failed IOL primarily by caesarean delivery. This study aims to explore the association between maternal BMI and failed IOL, defined as failure to progress to the active phase of labor. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe studied 22 114 term, singleton women undergoing IOL in the Central Denmark Region from 2013 to 2022. Women with spontaneous prelabor rupture of membranes, uterine scar, or fetal demise were excluded. The main outcome measure was failed IOL, defined as not reaching cervical dilation of 6 cm or more. BMI, our exposure, was modeled as a continuous variable using restricted cubic splines and as a categorical variable stratified according to the World Health Organization BMI groups. Adjusted logistic regression was used in both models to assess the association between BMI and failed IOL.
resultsProportions of nulliparous women with failed IOL ranged between 4% for normal weight and 10% for obesity class III. Adjusted odds ratios for nulliparous women for failed IOL were 1.5 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.3, 1.7) for overweight, 1.8 (95% CI 1.4, 2.3) for obesity class I, 2.7 (95% CI 2.2, 3.3) for obesity class II, and 2.9 (95% CI 1.4, 6.0) for obesity class III compared to women with normal weight. In parous women, there was a similar but less pronounced association between BMI and failed IOL with a <2% absolute risk of failed IOL. A similar pattern was found when BMI and failed IOL were modeled using restricted cubic splines.
conclusionsIn singleton women with induced labor at term, increasing BMI was associated with higher odds of failed IOL; this association was more pronounced in nulliparous women.
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.