A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour
- PMID: 31995603
- PMCID: PMC6988952
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228196
A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour
Abstract
Background: The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.
Methods: A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.
Results: 68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.
Conclusions: While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review.BJOG. 2009 Apr;116(5):626-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02065.x. Epub 2009 Feb 4. BJOG. 2009. PMID: 19191776 Review.
-
Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials.PLoS Med. 2020 Dec 8;17(12):e1003436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003436. eCollection 2020 Dec. PLoS Med. 2020. PMID: 33290410 Free PMC article.
-
Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 15;7(7):CD004945. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32666584 Free PMC article.
-
Induction of labour indications and timing: A systematic analysis of clinical guidelines.Women Birth. 2020 May;33(3):219-230. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.004. Epub 2019 Jul 6. Women Birth. 2020. PMID: 31285166
-
Omega-3 fatty acid addition during pregnancy.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 15;11(11):CD003402. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003402.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30480773 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
A Systematic Review to Compare Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Pregestational Diabetes and Gestational Diabetes.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 31;19(17):10846. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191710846. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36078559 Free PMC article.
-
Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?Front Glob Womens Health. 2022 Nov 21;3:936770. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.936770. eCollection 2022. Front Glob Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 36479232 Free PMC article.
-
Outcomes of induction versus spontaneous onset of labour at 40 and 41 GW: findings from a prospective database, Sri Lanka.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Jun 27;22(1):518. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04800-1. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 35761191 Free PMC article.
-
Women's attitudes, beliefs and values about tests, and management for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Sep 30;21(1):665. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04144-2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021. PMID: 34592942 Free PMC article.
-
A comparative analysis of methods of preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in Poland and in Germany (Part II): maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Jan 27;25(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-07015-8. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025. PMID: 39871179 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence. New South Wales Mothers and Babies 2016. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2017.
-
- McCarthy F, Kenny LC. Induction of labour. Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine. 2016;26(10):304–10.
-
- McCarthy F, Kenny L. Induction of labour. Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine. 2013;24(1):9–15.
-
- AIHW. National Maternity Data Development Project: Indications for induction of labour—Research brief no. 6. Cat. no. PER 80. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2016.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous