NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2009 Mar. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 176.)

Cover of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor.

Show details

Appendix C: Additional Analyses for Systematic Review

Figure 1. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: cesarean delivery (risk difference)

Figure 2. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: cesarean delivery, stratified by gestational age (risk difference)

Figure 3. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: cesarean delivery, stratified by study year (risk difference)

Figure 4. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: cesarean delivery, stratified by study location (risk difference)

Figure 5. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: operative vaginal delivery (risk difference)

Figure 6. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: cesarean delivery (risk difference)

Figure 7. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: cesarean delivery among nulliparous women (risk difference)

Figure 8. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: cesarean delivery among nulliparous women stratified by study location (odds ratio)

Figure 9. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: cesarean delivery among nulliparous women stratified by study location (risk difference)

Figure 10. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: cesarean delivery among multiparous women (risk difference)

Figure 11. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: operative vaginal delivery (risk difference)

Figure 12. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: operative vaginal delivery among nulliparous women (risk difference)

Figure 13. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 (risk difference)

Figure 14. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: meconium-stained amniotic fluid (risk difference)

Figure 15. Randomized controlled trials of elective induction of labor versus expectant management: meconium aspiration syndrome (risk difference)

Figure 16. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: 5-minute Apgar score less than 7 (risk difference)

Figure 17. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: meconium-stained amniotic fluid (risk difference)

Figure 18. Observational studies of elective induction of labor versus spontaneous labor: NICU admissions (risk difference)

Figure 19. Cesarean deliveries (following induction) by parity: observational studies (risk difference)

Table 1. Studies of induction of labor reporting predictors of cesarean delivery: Study information

Table 2. Studies of induction of labor reporting predictors of induction success or failure: Study information

Table 3. Additional predictors of cesarean delivery among all women

Table 4. Additional predictors of cesarean delivery among nulliparous women

Table 5. Additional predictors of cesarean delivery among multiparous women

Table 6. Predictors of induction success reported among all women

Table 7. Predictors of induction success reported among nulliparous women

Table 8. Predictors of induction success reported among multiparous women

Table 9. Predictors of failure

References for Appendix Tables

1.
Abou el-Leil LA, Nasrat AA, Fayed HM. Prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessaries in the grandmultipara with an unripe cervix, a comparison of different parity groups. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1993 Feb;40(2):119–122. [PubMed: 8094680]
2.
Ahner R, Egarter C, Kiss H. et al. Fetal fibronectin as a selection criterion for induction of term labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Nov;173(5):1513–1517. [PubMed: 7503193]
3.
Alberico S, Fadalti M, Grimaldi E, De Seta F, Mazza S, Guaschino S. Eligibility criteria for labor induction with prostaglandins. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1997;24(2):61–66. [PubMed: 9342463]
4.
Alchalabi HA, Obeidat BR, Jallad MF, Khader YS. Induction of labor and perinatal outcome: the impact of the amniotic fluid index. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Dec;129(2):124–127. [PubMed: 16360261]
5.
Anderson MM. The state of the cervix, and surgical induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1965 Oct;72(5):711–716. [PubMed: 5842319]
6.
Arulkumaran S, Gibb DM, TambyRaja RL, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Failed induction of labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Aug;25(3):190–193. [PubMed: 3866556]
7.
Gibb DM, Arulkumaran S, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Characteristics of induced labour. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Mar;11(1):27–31. [PubMed: 4015518]
8.
Ben-Haroush A, Glickman H, Yogev Y, Kaplan B, Feldberg D, Hod M. Induction of labor in pregnancies with suspected large-for-gestational-age fetuses and unfavorable cervix. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Oct 15;116(2):182–185. [PubMed: 15358461]
9.
Boyd ME, Usher RH, McLean FH, Kramer MS. Obstetric consequences of postmaturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Feb;158(2):334–338. [PubMed: 3277431]
10.
Buist R. Induction of labour: indications and obstetric outcomes in a tertiary referral hospital. N Z Med J. 1999 Jul 9;112(1091):251–253. [PubMed: 10448982]
11.
Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Cheng YW, Lyell DJ, Washington AE. Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;195(3):700–705. [PubMed: 16949399]
12.
Chan LY, Fu L, Leung TN, Wong SF, Lau TK. Obstetric outcomes after cervical ripening by multiple doses of vaginal prostaglandin E2. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Jan;83(1):70–74. [PubMed: 14678088]
13.
Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A. Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 Nov;27(4):309–311. [PubMed: 3453668]
14.
Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Robinson JS. Morning compared with evening induction of labor: a nested randomized controlled trial. A nested randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;108(2):350–360. [PubMed: 16880306]
15.
Ecker JL, Chen KT, Cohen AP, Riley LE, Lieberman ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):883–887. [PubMed: 11641671]
16.
Edris FE, von Dadelszen P, Ainsworth LM, Liston RM. Predictors of cesarean section following elective post-dates induction of labor in nullipara with uncomplicated singleton vertex pregnancies. Saudi Med J. 2006 Aug;27(8):1167–1172. [PubMed: 16883446]
17.
Ekman G, Perssen PH, Ulmsten U, Wingerup L. The impact on labor induction of intracervically applied PGE2-gel, related to gestational age in patients with an unripe cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1983;113:173–175. [PubMed: 6574676]
18.
Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):254–257. [PubMed: 11896946]
19.
Garite TJ, Casal D, Garcia-Alonso A. et al. Fetal fibronectin: a new tool for the prediction of successful induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Dec;175(6):1516–1521. [PubMed: 8987935]
20.
Goeschen K, Pakzad S. Risks occurring in birth induction without considering cervix maturity. J Perinat Med. 1980;8(1):27–37. [PubMed: 7365668]
21.
Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Aug;102(2):287–293. [PubMed: 12907101]
22.
Heimstad R, Romundstad PR, Eik-Nes SH, Salvesen KA. Outcomes of pregnancy beyond 37 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;108(3 Pt 1):500–508. [PubMed: 16946207]
23.
Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1565–1569. discussion 1569–1572. [PubMed: 12824994]
24.
Morgan MA, Thurnau GR. Efficacy of the fetal-pelvic index in patients requiring labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Sep;159(3):621–625. [PubMed: 3048100]
25.
Nooh A, Baghdadi S, Raouf S. Induction of labour: how close to the evidence-based guidelines are we? J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Jul;25(5):451–454. [PubMed: 16183578]
26.
Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ, Owen J. The association of maternal weight with cesarean risk, labor duration, and cervical dilation rate during labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):452–456. [PubMed: 14990405]
27.
Onifade A. Induction of labour. West Afr Med J. 1970 Jun;19(3):105–108. [PubMed: 5482328]
28.
Orhue AA, Unuigbe JA, Ezimokhai M, Ojo VA. Outcome of induced labor in 931 term pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jul;64(1):108–114. [PubMed: 6738933]
29.
Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;107(2 Pt 1):227–233. [PubMed: 16449105]
30.
Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Jauniaux E. Impact on delivery outcome of ultrasonographic fetal head position prior to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Mar;109(3):618–625. [PubMed: 17329512]
31.
Rizzo N, Farina A, Santarsiero G. et al. Correlation among amniotic fluid index (AFI), cesarean section rate, and labor length in inducted pregnancies beyond 41 weeks' gestation with unfavorable cervix. Am J Perinatol. 2000;17(6):319–324. [PubMed: 11144315]
32.
Rizzo N, Farina A, Santarsiero G. et al. Amniotic fluid index and labor length of pregnancies induced beyond 41 weeks of gestation with unfavorable cervix. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2000;49(4):244–248. [PubMed: 10828707]
33.
Saunders N, Amis S, Marsh M. The prognostic value of fetal ultrasonography before induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Nov;99(11):903–906. [PubMed: 1450140]
34.
Schreyer P, Bar-Natan N, Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Caspi E. Fetal breathing movements before oxytocin induction in prolonged pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Sep;165(3):577–581. [PubMed: 1892182]
35.
Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;105(4):705–709. [PubMed: 15802394]
36.
Tan PC, Suguna S, Vallikkannu N, Hassan J. Ultrasound and clinical predictors for Caesarean delivery after labour induction at term. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Dec;46(6):505–509. [PubMed: 17116055]
37.
Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 May;182(5):1030–1032. [PubMed: 10819818]
38.
Wigton TR, Wolk BM. Elective and routine induction of labor. A retrospective analysis of 274 cases. J Reprod Med. 1994 Jan;39(1):21–26. [PubMed: 8169911]
39.
Xenakis EM, Piper JM, Conway DL, Langer O. Induction of labor in the nineties: conquering the unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):235–239. [PubMed: 9241300]
40.
Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Perez-Medina T, Barbancho C, Troyano J, Bajo J. The labor induction: integrated clinical and sonographic variables that predict the outcome. J Perinatol. 2007 Jan;27(1):4–8. [PubMed: 17180126]
41.
Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Salazar F. et al. Variables that predict the success of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Nov;84(11):1093–1097. [PubMed: 16232178]
42.
Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;18(6):623–628. [PubMed: 11844202]
43.
Wilson PD, Philpott RH. Induction of labour in Black patients. S Afr Med J. 1976 Mar 24;50(13):498–502. [PubMed: 1265545]
44.
Williams RM, Craft I. Caesarean section following modern induction of labour. Br J Clin Pract. Mar 1979;33(3):80–81, 84. [PubMed: 444390]
45.
Williams MC, Krammer J, O'Brien WF. The value of the cervical score in predicting successful outcome of labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Nov;90(5):784–789. [PubMed: 9351765]
46.
Wing DA, Tran S, Paul RH. Factors affecting the likelihood of successful induction after intravaginal misoprostol application for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;186(6):1237–1240. discussion 1240–1233. [PubMed: 12066104]
47.
Wilailak S, Saropala N, Chaturachinda K. Elective induction of labor: Ramathibodi Hospital (Jan–Jun, 1990) J Med Assoc Thai. 1993 Jan;76(Suppl 1):44–47. [PubMed: 8113655]
48.
A clinical trial of induction of labor versus expectant management in postterm pregnancy. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. Am J Obstet Gynecol Mar 1994;170(3):716–723. [PubMed: 7710467]
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Related information

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...