In both high- and low-income nations, preterm pre-labou membrane rupture is a significant contributor to perinatal, neonatal, and maternal illness and mortality. Premature membrane rupture puts a woman at risk for postpartum haemorrhage, intraamniotic infection, and even death. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the prevalence of preterm premature rupture of membranes and its related factors among pregnant women admitted to health institutions because little is known about the issue in the study region. A total of 300 participants participated in this research among which 100 had preterm PROM, 100 had PROM, and 100 had preterm deliveries. The ages of the participants ranged from 18-40 years with a mean age of 25.12 ± 4.43 years. Among 300 participants, 9.33, 17.33, 21, 24.33, and 28% were 18-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, and 40 years of age, respectively. Among the total, 19 (6.33%), 271 (90.33%) and 10 (3.33%) were divorced, married and widowed, respectively. Among a total, 44, 40.33, and 15.66% of the participants were multigravida, primigravida, and grand-multigravida, respectively. The majority (87%) of mothers had ANC follow-up in their current pregnancy. In the large population, 255 (85%) had labor pain while 171 (578%) of mothers showed vaginal bleeding in the current pregnancy and 167 (55.67%) of mothers had cephalic presentation. 88.33% of pregnant women had no history of PROM. 97 (32.33%) of mothers had urinary tract infection in pregnancy, 32 (10.66%) had anaemia, and 41 (13.67%) had an abnormal vaginal discharge. The pregnant mothers had not used any cocaine, and cigarettes. Different risk factors associated with PPROM such as current urinary tract infection, gravidity, history of previous PPROM, preeclampsia, economic status, and anaemia were recorded. The major risk factors are use of smoking, chat, and cocaine. To lower the incidence of preterm premature rupture of membranes, early detection and treatment of urinary tract infections and atypical vaginal discharges were advised. Keywords: Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes; fetal outcome; Female urogenital disorders; maternal age; Pakistan

Summary Context: Both medical and nonmedical interventions to hasten labour and delivery are on the rise. Whether or not elective induction of labour improves outcomes or merely leads to additional complications and healthcare expenditures is a contentious topic in the scientific literature. Purpose: Choosing to induce labour artificially vs waiting for the baby to come naturally is the focus of this research. Data Sources: Internet, previous systematic reviews, and databases including MEDLINE (2022), Web of Science (2022), CINAHL (2022), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2022). Data Extraction: Structure, patient characteristics, quality standards, and outcomes like as caesarean section and maternal and neonatal morbidity were abstracted by two writers. Data Synthesis: In all, more than a hundred publications were considered, but only 36 were included (11 RCTs and 25 observational studies). In a non-significant trend, women who were treated as if they were about to give birth (OR, 1.21 [CI, 1.01 to 1.46]) had a higher chance of having a caesarean section than women who were treated as though they were still in the early stages of pregnancy (OR, 1.73 [CI, 0.67 to 4.5]). Amniotic fluid was more likely to be meconium-stained in women who were expectantly managed than to those who had chosen to be induced (OR, 2.04 [CI, 1.34 to 3.09]). Exponential likelihood ratio = 2.04 [95% confidence interval = 1.34 to 3.09]). Conclusion: RCTs imply that inducing labor at 41 weeks or later reduces the risk of caesarean birth and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Future research should evaluate elective induction of labor where most obstetric care is offered.