ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Threatened preterm labor in Japan: an evidence-practice gap in diagnosis, tocolysis, and guideline implementation.
Review in Frontiers in reproductive health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preterm birth remains a major perinatal challenge, and management of women presenting with symptoms suggestive of early labor can shape admission, monitoring, medication use, and transfer pathways. In contemporary international practice, threatened preterm labor is generally managed within a risk-stratified framework, and tocolysis is used mainly for short-term obstetric purposes such as antenatal corticosteroid completion, maternal transfer, and fetal neuroprotection. In Japan, however, threatened preterm labor has often been diagnosed across a relatively broad clinical spectrum and managed with prolonged inpatient observation, bed rest, and extended ritodrine-based tocolysis. This review examines that pattern as a policy and practice problem rather than a narrow therapeutic controversy. It argues that the Japanese approach reflects a persistent evidence-practice gap involving broad diagnostic labeling, limited evidence supporting routine maintenance ritodrine, heterogeneous real-world practice, and guideline wording that remains more permissive than prohibitive. The available literature does not support prolonged maintenance ritodrine as routine care, while associations with maternal and neonatal safety concerns have been increasingly reported. Persistence is interpreted as potentially related to diagnostic breadth, institutional routines, limited therapeutic pathways, and uncertainty about de-escalation, not as evidence of a single cultural or medico-legal cause. This review proposes clearer negative recommendations on prolonged maintenance ritodrine, stronger diagnostic precision, and operational protocols that distinguish high-risk women requiring inpatient care from lower-risk women suitable for reassessment, treatment reduction, or outpatient follow-up.
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.