In due time

Harðardóttir, Hildur

doi:10.1111/aogs.13683

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3][4][5] Furthermore, elective labor induction offered to healthy pregnant women around the estimated due date is under discussion-a change in standard practice that would have major impacts for pregnant women. 6 In the face of such a major policy discussion, it is imperative to produce accurate population-based data on maternal and neonatal outcomes during periods of rising rates of labor induction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cesarean birth, obstetric emergencies, and adverse neonatal outcomes in Iceland during a period of increasing labor induction

Gunnarsdottir

Swift

Jakobsdóttir

et al. 2021

Birth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The rate of labor induction has risen steeply throughout the world. This project aimed to estimate changes in the rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in Iceland between 1997 and 2018, and to assess whether the changes can be explained by an increased rate of labor induction. Methods: Singleton live births, occurring between 1997 and 2018, that did not start by prelabor cesarean, were identified from the Icelandic Medical Birth Register (n = 85 971). Rates of intrapartum cesarean birth (CB), obstetric emergencies, and neonatal outcomes were calculated, and adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with log-binomial regression (reference: 1997-2001). Adjustments were made for: (a) maternal characteristics, and (b) labor induction and gestational age. Results: The rate of labor induction increased from 13.6% in the period 1997-2001 to 28.1% in the period 2014-2018. The rate of intrapartum CB decreased between the periods of 1997-2001 and 2014-2018 for both primiparous (aRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.84) and multiparous women (aRR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.63). The rate of obstetric emergencies and adverse neonatal outcomes also decreased between these time periods. Adjusting for labor induction did not attenuate these associations. Conclusions: The rates of adverse maternal outcomes and adverse neonatal outcomes decreased over the study period. However, there was no evidence that this decrease could be explained by the increased rate of labor induction.

show abstract