Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify, assess and synthesize the best available evidence on the effects of induction prior to post-term on the mother and fetus. Maternal and fetal outcomes after routine labor induction in low-risk pregnancies at 41+0 to 41+6 gestational weeks (prior to post-term) were compared to routine labor induction at 42+0 to 42+6 gestational weeks (post-term). INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor when a pregnancy exceeds 14 days past the estimated due date has long been used as an intervention to prevent adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Over the last decade, clinical procedures have changed in many countries towards earlier induction. A shift towards earlier inductions may lead to 15-20% more inductions. Given the fact that induction as an intervention can cause harm to both mother and child, it is essential to ensure that the benefits of the change in clinical practice outweigh the harms. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included studies with participants with expected low-risk deliveries, where both fetus and mother were considered healthy at inclusion and with no known risks besides the potential risk of the ongoing pregnancy. Included studies evaluated induction at 41+1-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+1-6 gestational weeks. Randomized control trials (n = 2), quasi-experimental trials (n = 2), and cohort studies (n = 3) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were cesarean section, instrumental vaginal delivery, low Apgar score (≤ 7/5 min.), and low pH (< 7.10). Secondary outcomes included additional indicators of fetal or maternal wellbeing related to prolonged pregnancy or induction. METHODS: The following information sources were searched for published and unpublished studies: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Swemed+, POPLINE; Cochrane, TRIP; Current Controlled Trials; Web of Science, and, for gray literature: MedNar; Google Scholar, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, and guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, according to the published protocol. In addition, OpenGrey and guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, World Health Organization, and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada were sought. Included papers were assessed by all three reviewers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). The standardized data extraction tool from JBI SUMARI was used. Data were pooled in a statistical meta-analysis model using RevMan 5, when the criteria for meta-analysis were met. Non-pooled results were presented separately. RESULTS: Induction at 41+0-6 gestational weeks compared to 42+0-6 gestational weeks was found to be associated with an increased risk of overall cesarean section (relative risk [RR] = 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.14), cesarean section due to failure to progress (RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.01-2.01), chorioamnionitis (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.21), labor dystocia (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37), precipitate labor (RR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.45-5.2), uterine rupture (RR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.54-2.52), pH < 7.10 (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.48-2.43), and a decreased risk of oligohydramnios (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.67) and meconium stained amniotic fluid (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91). Data lacked statistical power to draw conclusions on perinatal death. No differences were seen for postpartum hemorrhage, shoulder dystocia, meconium aspiration, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. A policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labor until 42+0-6 gestational weeks showed, that approximately 70% went into spontaneous labor. CONCLUSIONS: Induction prior to post-term was associated with few beneficial outcomes and several adverse outcomes. This draws attention to possible iatrogenic effects affecting large numbers of low-risk women in contemporary maternity care. According to the World Health Organization, expected benefits from a medical intervention must outweigh potential harms. Hence, our results do not support the widespread use of routine induction prior to post-term (41+0-6 gestational weeks).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».