The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta‐analysis. (25th February 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nicholson, JM; Kellar, LC; Henning, GF; Waheed, A; Colon‐Gonzalez, M; Ural, S
• Is Part Of: BJOG. Volume 122:Number 6(2015:Jun.)
• Page Start: 773
• Page End: 784
• Publication Date: 2015-02-25
• Subjects: Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618
• DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13301
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1470-0328

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="bjo13301-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Despite a lack of high‐quality evidence, the use of 'non‐indicated' term labour induction is increasingly restricted throughout the world.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Search strategy</title> <p>MEDLINE and PUBMED databases were searched electronically.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Selection criteria</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Data collection and analysis</title> <p>Four studies from four unique databases were identified. A meta‐analysis was performed using STATA IC12.</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Main results</title> <p>Pregnancies exposed to the regular use of preventive induction (<italic>n</italic> = 1153), as compared with pregnancies receiving the current standard approach (<italic>n</italic> = 1865), experienced a lower caesarean delivery rate (5.7% versus 14.4%; relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.31–0.50; <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup><italic>P </italic>= 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; <italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup><italic>P </italic>= 0.57), and a lower weighted adverse outcome index score (2.8 versus 6.1).</p> </sec> <sec id="bjo13301-sec-0007" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> </abstract>