Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131132›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Adverse neonatal outcomes and associated factors among mothers who gave birth through induced and spontaneous labor in public hospitals of Awi zone, Northwest Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study.

Melaku Laikemariam, Almaz Aklilu, Fikadu Waltengus, Melkamu Addis, Wubishet Gezimu, Fekadu Baye, Temesgen Getaneh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melaku LaikemariamDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health Science, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia. laikemariam2014@gmail.com.
Almaz AkliluDepartment of Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Science, Bahr Dar University, Bahr Dar, Ethiopia.
Fikadu WaltengusDepartment of Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Science, Bahr Dar University, Bahr Dar, Ethiopia.
Melkamu AddisDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health Science, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
Wubishet GezimuDepartment of Nursing, College of Health Science, Mettu University, Mettu, Ethiopia.
Fekadu BayeDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health Science, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
Temesgen GetanehDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health Science, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
Debre Markos University · ETBahir Dar University · ETEthiopian Civil Service University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdverse neonatal outcomes are one of the most common causes of neonatal mortality and morbidity. Empirical evidence across the world shows that induction of labor potentiates adverse neonatal outcomes. In Ethiopia, there has been limited data that compares the frequency of adverse neonatal outcomes between induced and spontaneous labor.

objectivesTo compare the prevalence of adverse neonatal outcomes between induced and spontaneous labor and to determine associated factors among women who gave birth in public hospitals of Awi Zone, Northwest Ethiopia.

methodsA comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at Awi Zone public hospitals from May 1 to June 30, 2022. A simple random sampling technique was employed to select 788 (260 induced and 528 spontaneous) women. The collected data were analyzed using statistical package for social science (SPSS) software version 26. The Chi-square test and an independent t-test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A binary logistic regression was used to assess the association between the outcome and explanatory variables. In the bivariate analysis, a p-value ≤ 0.2 at a 95% confidence interval was used to consider the variables in the multivariate analysis. Finally, statistical significance was stated at a p-value of less than 0.05.

resultThe adverse neonatal outcomes among women who gave birth through induced labor were 41.1%, whereas spontaneous labor was 10.3%. The odds of adverse neonatal outcomes in induced labor were nearly two times higher than in spontaneous labor (AOR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.11-3.22). No education (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.56, 6.44), chronic disease (AOR = 3.99, 95% CI: 1.87, 8.52), male involvement (AOR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.23, 4.06), preterm birth (AOR = 9.83, 95% CI: 8.74, 76.37), operative delivery (AOR = 8.60, 95% CI: 4.63, 15.90), cesarean section (AOR = 4.17, 95% CI: 1.94, 8.95), and labor complications (AOR = 5.16, 95% CI: 2.90, 9.18) were significantly associated factors with adverse neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Adverse neonatal outcomes in the study area were higher. Composite adverse neonatal outcomes were significantly higher in induced labor compared to spontaneous labor. Therefore, it is important to anticipate the possible adverse neonatal outcomes and plan management strategies while conducting every labor induction.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionPremature BirthCross-Sectional StudiesEthiopiaFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyAdverse neonatal outcomesEthiopiaInduced laborSpontaneous labor

Identifiers

PMID37131132
PMCPMC10152696
OpenAlexW4367677932

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.