ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Labour induction and adverse perinatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rising overall prevalence of induction of labour (IOL) in high-income countries raises questions about the appropriateness of its clinical indications and concerns about potential adverse perinatal outcomes. The underlying reasons for this increase remain unclear but may include broader clinical indications, changing maternal or foetal conditions, or more maternal requests. This study aimed to assess changes in prevalence of IOL and adverse perinatal outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study using data from a perinatal registry encompassing all births in a French region. The study included all women who delivered a live-born infant. IOL and perinatal outcomes were obtained from medical records. We first described the overall prevalence of these outcomes, followed by a stratified analysis based on the eight-group Grenoble Classification for IOL indications. Variations in IOL and perinatal outcomes were assessed from 2020 (reference) to 2023, both overall and by group, using Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations.
resultsThe study population included 54,089 women. Overall IOL prevalence rose from 20.7% in 2020 to 28.1% in 2023 (adjusted risk-ratio (aRR) 1.31, 95%CI 1.15-1.49). This increase was mainly driven by higher aRRs in Group-5 [Single cephalic pregnancy ≥41 weeks of gestation (WG)] (34.6% to 42.9%; aRR 1.21, 95%CI 1.10-1.40), Group-6 [Single cephalic pregnancy with maternal pathology from 37 to 40+6 WG] (31.5% to 49.7%; aRR 1.56, 95%CI 1.38-1.75), and Group-7 [Single cephalic pregnancy with foetal pathology from 37 to 40+6 WG] (52.9% to 77.2%; aRR 1.46, 95%CI 1.14-1.88). Adverse outcome changes were observed only in these three groups, with increased emergency caesarean rates in Group-5 (12.4% to 16.4%; aRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.40) and Group-7 (13.1% to 19.6%; aRR 1.40, 95%CI 1.04-1.80), as well as higher postpartum haemorrhage rates in Group-5 (5.8% to 7.7%; aRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.69) and Group-6 (4.9% to 7.0%; aRR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05-1.90). Neonatal morbidity remained stable.
conclusionsThe rise in overall IOL prevalence was driven by higher rates in three groups (pregnancies ≥41 WG, maternal and foetal pathology), in which we also observed a clinically meaningful increase in adverse maternal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.