Elective Induction of Labor: Waking the Sleeping Dogma?
Authors: George A. Macones
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2009)

Editorials18 August 2009Elective Induction of Labor: Waking the Sleeping Dogma?George A. Macones, MD, MSCEGeorge A. Macones, MD, MSCEFrom Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00012 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail In this issue, Caughey and colleagues (1) present the results of a systematic review conducted by the Stanford–University of California, San Francisco, Evidence-based Practice Center on the effect of elective induction of labor on cesarean birth rates and relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although many labor inductions are performed for maternal (such as preeclampsia) or fetal (such as poor fetal growth) indications, an increasing number of inductions are elective. Elective inductions are generally performed for the convenience of the patient or family, provider, or both. The number of inductions overall is increasing, as is the number of elective inductions. Thus ...Reference1. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-63. LinkGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: George A. Macones, MD, MSCEAffiliations: From Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110.Disclosures: Dr. Macones has served on the Expert Advisory Committee for the Stanford–University of California, San Francisco, Evidence-based Practice Center from 2007 to present (unpaid).Corresponding Author: George A. Macones, MD, MSCE, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 6th Floor, Maternity Building, 4911 Barnes Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63110; e-mail, maconesg@wustl.edu. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoSystematic Review: Elective Induction of Labor Versus Expectant Management of Pregnancy Aaron B. Caughey , Vandana Sundaram , Anjali J. Kaimal , Allison Gienger , Yvonne W. Cheng , Kathryn M. McDonald , Brian L. Shaffer , Douglas K. Owens , and Dena M. Bravata Metrics Cited byPregnancy outcomes of elective induction in low-risk term pregnanciesInduction of labour for postdates in nulliparous women with uncomplicated pregnancy – is the caesarean section rate really lower?Proactive support of laborCurtailed use of inductionThe association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta‐analysisThe distribution and predictive value of Bishop scores in nulliparas between 37 and 42 weeks gestationIs induced labour in the nullipara associated with more maternal and perinatal morbidity?IN THE LITERATURE: Elective Induction, Selective Deduction, and Cesarean Section 18 August 2009Volume 151, Issue 4Page: 281-282KeywordsAmniotic fluidBirthBirth ratesCohort studiesLabor and deliveryObservational studiesObstetrics and gynecologyOdds ratioPregnancySystematic reviews ePublished: 18 August 2009 Issue Published: 18 August 2009 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2009 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...