Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: A randomized clinical trial

Nielsen, Peter E.; Howard, Bobby; Hill, Christina C.; Larson, Penny L.; Holland, Robert H.; Smith, Paul N.

doi:10.1080/14767050500139604

Cited by 61 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4,15,16 A Cochrane review from 2012 also suggested no increase in newborn asphyxia with an earlier birth induction practice. 8 Although the decrease in asphyxia may have been reflected in fewer Apgar scores < 7 at 5 minutes, this outcome was also influenced by a range of other factors, such as drug use, trauma, congenital abnormalities and infections, problems that have not been resolved by an earlier labour induction policy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perinatal outcomes following an earlier post‐term labour induction policy: a historical cohort study

Hedegaard

Lidegaard

Skovlund

et al. 2015

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the changes in perinatal outcomes in children born from 37 weeks of gestation after implementation of a more proactive labour induction practice from 2009.Design Register-based cohort study.Setting Denmark, 2000-12.Population Newborns from 37 weeks of gestation.Methods Perinatal outcomes were estimated using a logistic regression analysis with adjustment for gestational age, maternal age, parity, plurality, smoking and body mass index. ConclusionThe results suggest an overall improvement in perinatal outcomes as a result of a more proactive post-term labour induction practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perinatal outcomes following an earlier post‐term labour induction policy: a historical cohort study

Hedegaard

Lidegaard

Skovlund

et al. 2015

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[26] Similarly, Gelisen O et al in 2007 also reported 4.3% of babies were admitted in NICU among induced patient but another study done by Nielsen P et al in 2005 reported that there was no NICU admission of baby in induced group. [27,28] Peters M in 1995 reported 1% of neonatal death in induction groups. [29] Lampe LG also reported 0.05% of neonatal death in contrast to Praysak M who reported that there was no neonatal death in induced patients.…”

Section: Indications For Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of Induction of Labor: A Prospective Study

Lamichhane¹,

Subedi²,

Banerjee³

et al. 2016

AIMDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Induction is defined as artificial initiation of uterine contraction with the aim of achieving the normal vaginal delivery. It is most widely accepted obstetrical intervention worldwide. The most common indication for induction is post dated pregnancy. Objective: To assess the outcome of induction in both mother and baby. Methods: During our study period, 391 patients were selected for induction due to various indications. Most of them were induced with tablet Misoprostol and only those with higher degree of gravida were induced with Dinoprostone gel intracervically and maternal and fetal outcome was seen.Results: Out of 4020 patients, induction rate was 9.72%. Among them 98.2% were induced with Misoprostol. Most of the induced age group was in between 20-30 years of age with primigravida 62%. Among them 48.59% were in between 40-41 weeks of gestation with 93% of having poor bishops score. About 67.7% had normal vaginal delivery with 4.86%, assisted with instrumental delivery. Cesarean section was seen in 32.3% of patients. Most common indications for LSCS were for failed induction (44%). Regarding the fetal outcome 99.7% born alive, 97.92% went to mother side, 2.07% admitted and 0.51% expired. Beside this, 88.7% had birth weight between 2.5 to 3.5 kg and 87.4% had clear liquor and 99.22% had the good apgar score. Conclusion: Though the cesarean section rate is higher in this study in comparison of WHO references to be not more than 15% but still the induction is beneficial in high-risk pregnancy where continuing the pregnancy is more hazardous than to termination.

show abstract

“…However, these studies all focused on women with already established problems such as oligohydramnios (52), macrosomia (53), and insulin dependent diabetes (54). In addition, several often-cited randomized clinical studies that did not find benefit with labor induction either took place before the availability of prostaglandin cervical ripening protocols or were not sufficiently powered to fully evaluate the full spectrum of birth outcomes (55)(56)(57)(58). The prospective trials that have demonstrated improvement in birth outcomes related to labor induction were studies of women with mild-moderate risk profiles where labor induction was employed before the development of a recognized complication (59)(60)(61).…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of the Active Management of Risk in Pregnancy at Term on Birth Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Nicholson

Parry

Caughey

et al. 2008

Obstetrical &Amp; Gynecological Survey

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-To compare birth outcomes resulting from the active management of risk in pregnancy at term (AMOR-IPAT) to those resulting from standard management.Methods-Randomized clinical trial with 270 women of mixed parity. AMOR-IPAT used preventive labor induction to ensure delivery before the end of an estimated optimal time of delivery. Rates of four adverse obstetric events, and two composite measures, were used to evaluate birth outcomes.Results-The AMOR-IPAT-exposed group had a similar cesarean delivery rate (10.3% vs. 14.9%, p=0.25), but a lower NICU admission rate (1.5% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03), a higher uncomplicated vaginal birth rate (73.5% vs. 62.8%, p=0.046), and a lower mean Adverse Outcome Index score (1.4 vs. 8.6, p=0.03).Conclusion-AMOR-IPAT exposure improved the pattern of birth outcomes. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to further explore the impact of AMOR-IPAT on birth outcomes and to determine the best methods of preventive labor induction.

show abstract

Comparison of elective induction of labor with favorable Bishop scores versus expectant management: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract: In women with favorable Bishop scores, elective induction of labor resulted in no increase in cesarean delivery compared to expectant management.

Cited by 61 publications

References 3 publications

Perinatal outcomes following an earlier post‐term labour induction policy: a historical cohort study

Perinatal outcomes following an earlier post‐term labour induction policy: a historical cohort study

Outcome of Induction of Labor: A Prospective Study

The Impact of the Active Management of Risk in Pregnancy at Term on Birth Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About