ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Immediate induction versus expectant management in primiparas presenting with decreased fetal movements at 39 weeks.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes in primiparous patients presenting with decreased fetal movements (DFM), comparing immediate induction of labor with expectant management. STUDY
designThis retrospective cohort study included nulliparous patients with singleton pregnancies who presented to our obstetric triage unit between 39 + 0 and 39 + 6 weeks of gestation with a subjective complaint of DFM, a reassuring fetal assessment, and a normal biophysical profile. Patients were offered labor induction. Those who agreed formed the induction group, while those who declined and were discharged home comprised the control group. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared.
resultsA total of 413 patients were included: 282 in the induction group and 131 in the expectant management group. Gestational age at delivery was lower in the induction group (39.4 ± 0.3 vs. 40.1 ± 0.3 weeks, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in birthweight, cesarean delivery rates, or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. The induction group had significantly fewer neonates with cord pH < 7.15 (2.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.034), and a shorter duration of neonatal hospitalization (2.0 ± 0.2 vs. 2.3 ± 0.5 days, p = 0.034); however, 5-min Apgar scores were similar between the groups. Total maternal hospitalization duration was significantly longer in the induction group (3.6 ± 0.6 vs. 2.2 ± 0.5 days, p < 0.001), though postpartum stay was slightly shorter (2.0 ± 0.2 vs. 2.2 ± 0.1 days, p < 0.001).
conclusionAmong primiparous patients presenting with DFM between 39 + 0 and 39 + 6 weeks, labor induction was associated with earlier delivery and improved umbilical cord pH without increasing maternal or neonatal complications.
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.