Literature DB >> 19687492

Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy.

Aaron B Caughey1, Vandana Sundaram, Anjali J Kaimal, Allison Gienger, Yvonne W Cheng, Kathryn M McDonald, Brian L Shaffer, Douglas K Owens, Dena M Bravata.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rates of induction of labor and elective induction of labor are increasing. Whether elective induction of labor improves outcomes or simply leads to greater complications and health care costs is commonly debated in the literature.
PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of elective induction of labor and expectant management of pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (through February 2009), Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through March 2009), bibliographies of included studies, and previous systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Experimental and observational studies of elective induction of labor reported in English. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors abstracted study design; patient characteristics; quality criteria; and outcomes, including cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 6117 potentially relevant articles, 36 met inclusion criteria: 11 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 25 observational studies. Overall, expectant management of pregnancy was associated with a higher odds ratio (OR) of cesarean delivery than was elective induction of labor (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.39]; absolute risk difference, 1.9 percentage points [CI, 0.2 to 3.7 percentage points]) in 9 RCTs. Women at or beyond 41 completed weeks of gestation who were managed expectantly had a higher risk for cesarean delivery (OR, 1.21 [CI, 1.01 to 1.46]), but this difference was not statistically significant in women at less than 41 completed weeks of gestation (OR, 1.73 [CI, 0.67 to 4.5]). Women who were expectantly managed were more likely to have meconium-stained amniotic fluid than those who were electively induced (OR, 2.04 [CI, 1.34 to 3.09]). LIMITATIONS: There were no recent RCTs of elective induction of labor at less than 41 weeks of gestation. The 2 studies conducted at less than 41 weeks of gestation were of poor quality and were not generalizable to current practice.
CONCLUSION: RCTs suggest that elective induction of labor at 41 weeks of gestation and beyond is associated with a decreased risk for cesarean delivery and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. There are concerns about the translation of these findings into actual practice; thus, future studies should examine elective induction of labor in settings where most obstetric care is provided.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19687492     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  44 in total

1.  An open source software project for obstetrical procedure scheduling and occupancy analysis.

Authors:  Mark W Isken; Timothy J Ward; Steven J Littig
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2010-10-27

2.  The distinctive characteristics of the hourly distribution of live births on specific days in Japan.

Authors:  Mihoko Takahashi
Journal:  Environ Health Prev Med       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 3.674

3.  Time-to-delivery and delivery outcomes comparing three methods of labor induction in 7551 nulliparous women: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  C Lindblad Wollmann; M Ahlberg; G Petersson; S Saltvedt; O Stephansson
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Induction rates and delivery outcomes after a policy limiting elective inductions.

Authors:  Kelly Yamasato; Marguerite Bartholomew; Marsha Durbin; Chieko Kimata; Bliss Kaneshiro
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-05

Review 5.  Timing of delivery in women with diabetes in pregnancy.

Authors:  Howard Berger; Nir Melamed
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2014-01-15

6.  Induction of Labour in Late and Postterm Pregnancies and its Impact on Maternal and Neonatal Outcome.

Authors:  F Thangarajah; P Scheufen; V Kirn; P Mallmann
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.915

7.  Term Elective Induction of Labor and Pregnancy Outcomes Among Obese Women and Their Offspring.

Authors:  Cassandra M Gibbs Pickens; Michael R Kramer; Penelope P Howards; Martina L Badell; Aaron B Caughey; Carol J Hogue
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ekaterina Mishanina; Ewelina Rogozinska; Tej Thatthi; Rehan Uddin-Khan; Khalid S Khan; Catherine Meads
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: what does the evidence tell us?

Authors:  Jennifer Moore; Lisa Kane Low
Journal:  J Perinat Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.638

10.  Timing of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.

Authors:  Maisa N Feghali; Steve N Caritis; Janet M Catov; Christina M Scifres
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.