Elective induction for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: A systematic review with meta-analysis
BMC Public Health, ISSN: 1471-2458, Vol: 11, Issue: SUPPL. 3, Page: S5
2011
- 64Citations
- 153Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations64
- Citation Indexes59
- 59
- CrossRef50
- Policy Citations5
- 5
- Captures153
- Readers153
- 153
Review Description
Background: An important determinant of pregnancy outcome is the timely onset of labor and birth. Prolonged gestation complicates 5% to 10% of all pregnancies and confers increased risk to both the fetus and mother. The purpose of this review was to study the possible impact of induction of labour (IOL) for post-term pregnancies compared to expectant management on stillbirths. Methods. A systematic review of the published studies including randomized controlled trials, quasi- randomized trials and observational studies was conducted. Search engines used were PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the WHO regional databases and hand search of bibliographies. A standardized data abstraction sheet was used. Recommendations have been made for input to the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) model by following standardized guidelines developed by the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG). Results: A total of 25 studies were included in this review. Meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests that a policy of elective IOL for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks is associated with significantly fewer perinatal deaths (RR=0.31; 95% CI: 0.11-0.88) compared to expectant management, but no significant difference in the incidence of stillbirth (RR= 0.29; 95% CI: 0.06-1.38) was noted. The included trials evaluating this intervention were small, with few events in the intervention and control group. There was significant decrease in incidence of neonatal morbidity from meconium aspiration (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79) and macrosomia (RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.54 - 0.98). Using CHERG rules, we recommended 69% reduction as a point estimate for the risk of stillbirth with IOL for prolonged gestation (<41 weeks). Conclusions: Induction of labour appears to be an effective way of reducing perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with post-term pregnancies. It should be offered to women with post-term pregnancies after discussing the benefits and risks of induction of labor. © 2011 Hussain et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79954493205&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-s3-s5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21501456; https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S5; http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-s3-s5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know