A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE) trial has shown a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation following labor induction (4.3%) than expectant management (5.4%, P=0.049). Although this difference was not statistically significant (since P=.046 is the significance threshold), interpreting these results by a Bayesian method and studying their conceptual importance is crucial. The hypothesis of ARRIVE trial is a stand against the central paradigm of modern obstetrics because it overlooks maternal or fetal compromise as a prerequisite for early delivery. The P-value function founded on ARRIVE trial shows that study findings are not agreeing with even a modest increase in adverse perinatal outcomes after labor induction for 39 weeks’ gestation, while it agrees with a substantial reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes. Physiological and epidemiologic evidence as well as meta-analyses of related randomized trials demonstrate that pregnancies follow little and gradual advancing risks of adverse outcomes at a later gestation. Bayesian analysis, founded on previous randomized trials updated with ARRIVE trial results, also demonstrates that labor induction for 39 weeks’ gestation holds a protective effect regarding adverse perinatal outcomes. Obstetricians must be mindful of this risks-benefits balance regarding labor induction and expectant management at 39 weeks’ gestation and beyond. However, the ultimate valuation in decision making must take into account the principles of patient autonomy.SOURCE- Joseph KS, John S, Boutin A. et al. Modern obstetrics: beyond early delivery for fetal or maternal compromise. AJOG-MFM, 2021;3(1). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100274