ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Assessing the impact of indication for labor induction on delivery outcomes: a five-year cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs the rate of induction of labor (IOL) is steadily increasing with the increasing rates of maternal age and obesity, having consequences on perinatal morbidity, health economics, and maternal childbirth experience, evidence for decision making should be available related to the indications. This study investigates the association of IOL indications with the delivery outcomes and provides clinicians with valuable information to weigh the benefits and potential risks associated with IOL. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective five-year cohort study was conducted in Helsinki University Hospital between 2017 and 2021. A total of 16 377 pregnant women undergoing IOL ≥ 37 gestational weeks with a live singleton fetus in cephalic presentation were included. The primary outcome measures were the rates of cesarean delivery (CD) and composite adverse neonatal outcome (including one or more of the following: perinatal death, neonatal intensive care admission, umbilical artery blood pH value ≤ 7.05, base excess value <-12, and 5-minute Apgar score 0-6).
resultsThe study population consisted of 16 377 women. The most common indications for IOL were post-term pregnancy (31.3%) and pre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) (26.3%). Overall, the CD rate was 20.3%, and the incidence of composite adverse neonatal outcome was 12.7%. Delivery outcomes varied according to the indication for induction. The highest CD rate of 27.9% was observed among women induced for hypertensive disorders (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4-1.8), whereas inductions for maternal exhaustion were associated with the lowest CD rate. Composite adverse neonatal outcomes were most frequent (19.1%, n = 179) following induction for fetal indications and least frequent (7.4%, n = 42) among women induced because of fear of childbirth. In analyses, performed separately for each IOL indication, nulliparity, unfavorable cervix, maternal age ≥ 35 years, maternal height < 164 cm, and pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 30 remained independent risk-factors for CD.
conclusionsThe indication for IOL is associated with both CD and adverse neonatal outcomes. While indication-specific differences should be considered when counseling women and planning induction, maternal characteristics and parity remain important determinants of CD risk. These findings may support individualized clinical decision-making regarding IOL.
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.