SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Definitions of failed induction of labor in the literature: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInduction of labor is a common obstetric intervention with rates up to 25% in developed countries. However, no accepted definition of failed induction of labor exists today. This challenges the comparability between studies investigating induction regimens in terms of efficacy and outcomes, thereby limiting the ability to generate homogenous and valid meta-analyses to inform practice.
objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to describe the definitions of failed induction of labor in the reported literature.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PudMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, which explicitly stated a definition of failed induction of labor were included. We extracted the definition from each study and described the components of the definitions.
resultsA total of 96 studies were included, yielding 112 distinct definitions, the vast majority of which differed from one another. Significant heterogeneity was observed among these definitions, and twelve unique components were identified within them. The most frequently cited component was the duration of induction, appearing in 65% of the definitions. .
conclusionThe variation in definitions of failed induction of labor used in the literature is vast. To ensure consensus and increase comparability when comparing studies investigating induction of labor, a standard definition is highly needed.
trial registrationPrior to this review a protocol was made and published on PROSPERO with ID number CRD42023405953.
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.