Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42597290›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2026

Threatened preterm labor in Japan: an evidence-practice gap in diagnosis, tocolysis, and guideline implementation.

Katsuaki Inami

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Katsuaki InamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fujinomiya City General Hospital, Fujinomiya, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

evidence–practice gapguideline implementationJapanpreterm laborritodrinethreatened preterm labortocolysis

Identifiers

PMID42597290
PMCPMC13468797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.