The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: Findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis

James Nicholson, L. C. Kellar, George Henning, Abdul Waheed, M. Colon-Gonzalez, Serdar Ural

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Despite a lack of high-quality evidence, the use of 'non-indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world. Objectives To assess published associations between the regular use of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' term labour induction (hereinafter 'preventive induction') and rates of common adverse birth outcomes. Search strategy MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically. Selection criteria Studies were identified that compared term birth outcomes following either the current standard approach with its emphasis on the expectant management of intermediate-level risk or the regular use of preventive induction. Data collection and analysis Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA IC12. Main results Pregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (n = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (n = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7% versus 14.4%; relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50; I2 P = 0.21), a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (2.9% versus 6.5%; relative risk 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65; I2 P = 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1). Conclusions The regular use of preventive induction, as compared with the current standard approach, was associated with a more favourable pattern of birth outcomes. Other recently published meta-analyses have also determined that certain types of 'non-indicated' labour induction are beneficial. Accordingly, the current broad restrictions on 'non-indicated' labour induction should be reconsidered. Adequately powered multi-site randomised clinical trials are needed to definitively study the risks and benefits of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' (i.e. 'preventive') term labour induction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)773-784
Number of pages12
JournalBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume122
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2015

Fingerprint

Induced Labor
Term Birth
Meta-Analysis
Parturition
Databases
Pregnancy
Neonatal Intensive Care Units
MEDLINE
Patient Selection
Randomized Controlled Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{889f83428b29466ea6f788f13f127fd7,
title = "The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: Findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background Despite a lack of high-quality evidence, the use of 'non-indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world. Objectives To assess published associations between the regular use of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' term labour induction (hereinafter 'preventive induction') and rates of common adverse birth outcomes. Search strategy MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically. Selection criteria Studies were identified that compared term birth outcomes following either the current standard approach with its emphasis on the expectant management of intermediate-level risk or the regular use of preventive induction. Data collection and analysis Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA IC12. Main results Pregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (n = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (n = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7{\%} versus 14.4{\%}; relative risk 0.39, 95{\%} CI 0.31-0.50; I2 P = 0.21), a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (2.9{\%} versus 6.5{\%}; relative risk 0.45, 95{\%} CI 0.31-0.65; I2 P = 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1). Conclusions The regular use of preventive induction, as compared with the current standard approach, was associated with a more favourable pattern of birth outcomes. Other recently published meta-analyses have also determined that certain types of 'non-indicated' labour induction are beneficial. Accordingly, the current broad restrictions on 'non-indicated' labour induction should be reconsidered. Adequately powered multi-site randomised clinical trials are needed to definitively study the risks and benefits of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' (i.e. 'preventive') term labour induction.",
author = "James Nicholson and Kellar, {L. C.} and George Henning and Abdul Waheed and M. Colon-Gonzalez and Serdar Ural",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1471-0528.13301",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "122",
pages = "773--784",
journal = "BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "1470-0328",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes : Findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Nicholson, James; Kellar, L. C.; Henning, George; Waheed, Abdul; Colon-Gonzalez, M.; Ural, Serdar.

In: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 122, No. 6, 01.05.2015, p. 773-784.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes

T2 - Findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Nicholson, James

AU - Kellar, L. C.

AU - Henning, George

AU - Waheed, Abdul

AU - Colon-Gonzalez, M.

AU - Ural, Serdar

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Background Despite a lack of high-quality evidence, the use of 'non-indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world. Objectives To assess published associations between the regular use of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' term labour induction (hereinafter 'preventive induction') and rates of common adverse birth outcomes. Search strategy MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically. Selection criteria Studies were identified that compared term birth outcomes following either the current standard approach with its emphasis on the expectant management of intermediate-level risk or the regular use of preventive induction. Data collection and analysis Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA IC12. Main results Pregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (n = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (n = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7% versus 14.4%; relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50; I2 P = 0.21), a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (2.9% versus 6.5%; relative risk 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65; I2 P = 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1). Conclusions The regular use of preventive induction, as compared with the current standard approach, was associated with a more favourable pattern of birth outcomes. Other recently published meta-analyses have also determined that certain types of 'non-indicated' labour induction are beneficial. Accordingly, the current broad restrictions on 'non-indicated' labour induction should be reconsidered. Adequately powered multi-site randomised clinical trials are needed to definitively study the risks and benefits of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' (i.e. 'preventive') term labour induction.

AB - Background Despite a lack of high-quality evidence, the use of 'non-indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world. Objectives To assess published associations between the regular use of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' term labour induction (hereinafter 'preventive induction') and rates of common adverse birth outcomes. Search strategy MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically. Selection criteria Studies were identified that compared term birth outcomes following either the current standard approach with its emphasis on the expectant management of intermediate-level risk or the regular use of preventive induction. Data collection and analysis Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA IC12. Main results Pregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (n = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (n = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7% versus 14.4%; relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50; I2 P = 0.21), a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (2.9% versus 6.5%; relative risk 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65; I2 P = 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1). Conclusions The regular use of preventive induction, as compared with the current standard approach, was associated with a more favourable pattern of birth outcomes. Other recently published meta-analyses have also determined that certain types of 'non-indicated' labour induction are beneficial. Accordingly, the current broad restrictions on 'non-indicated' labour induction should be reconsidered. Adequately powered multi-site randomised clinical trials are needed to definitively study the risks and benefits of modelled risk-based 'non-indicated' (i.e. 'preventive') term labour induction.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928014830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928014830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1471-0528.13301

DO - 10.1111/1471-0528.13301

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25716067

AN - SCOPUS:84928014830

VL - 122

SP - 773

EP - 784

JO - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 1470-0328

IS - 6

ER -