BackgroundRates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.MethodsWe listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.ResultsWe included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.ConclusionsResearch is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.

OBJECTIVES Maternal deficiency of the omega-3 fatty acid, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), has been associated with perinatal depression, but there is evidence that supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) may be more effective than DHA in treating depressive symptoms. This trial tested the relative effects of EPA- and DHA-rich fish oils on prevention of depressive symptoms among pregnant women at an increased risk of depression. STUDY DESIGN We enrolled 126 pregnant women at risk for depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score 9–19 or a history of depression) in early pregnancy and randomly assigned them to receive EPA-rich fish oil (1060 mg EPA plus 274 mg DHA), DHA-rich fish oil (900 mg DHA plus 180 mg EPA), or soy oil placebo. Subjects completed the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview at enrollment, 26–28 weeks, 34–36 weeks, and at 6–8 weeks’ postpartum. Serum fatty acids were analyzed at entry and at 34–36 weeks’ gestation. RESULTS One hundred eighteen women completed the trial. There were no differences between groups in BDI scores or other depression endpoints at any of the 3 time points after supplementation. The EPA-and DHA-rich fish oil groups exhibited significantly increased post-supplementation concentrations of serum EPA and serum DHA respectively. Serum DHA- concentrations at 34–36 weeks were inversely related to BDI scores in late pregnancy. CONCLUSION EPA-rich fish oil and DHA-rich fish oil supplementation did not prevent depressive symptoms during pregnancy or postpartum.

No abstract