ReviewCureus2025
Induction of Labor: A Narrative Review for Clinical Use.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trends in labor induction and perinatal outcomes: A decade comparison before and after the ARRIVE trial.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
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
Induction of labor (IOL) is a pivotal obstetric intervention employed when continuing pregnancy poses greater risks than delivery. Cervical readiness, defined as vaginal delivery within 24-48 hours without significant complications, is assessed via the Bishop Score or transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS). TVS is a key predictor of IOL success. Mechanical methods, such as a Foley catheter, and pharmacological agents (e.g., misoprostol and dinoprostone), facilitate cervical ripening. Indications for IOL include postterm pregnancy, hypertensive disorders, and intrauterine fetal demise, with timing tailored to maternal and fetal factors such as 39 weeks for low-risk cases and 37 weeks for mild preeclampsia. Special conditions, such as previous cesarean sections, require individualized approaches due to risks like uterine rupture, while hypertensive disorders necessitate prompt intervention to optimize outcomes. Complications such as failed induction, uterine hyperstimulation, and fetal distress underscore the need for vigilant monitoring. Despite challenges, IOL remains integral to obstetric care, enhancing maternal and neonatal safety through evidence-based practices. Future research should refine success metrics and optimize combined mechanical-pharmacological strategies to improve efficacy and reduce adverse events, ensuring a balanced risk-benefit profile across diverse clinical contexts. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on IOL, encompassing definitions, indications, methods, clinical scenarios, complications, and outcomes, emphasizing collaborative decision-making between healthcare providers and pregnant individuals.
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.