Cargando…
Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study
BACKGROUND: To demonstrate that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference in the labour outcome among induced nulliparous and multiparous women. METHODS: Obstetric outcome, specifically caesarean section rates, among induced term nulliparous and...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7682001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33225906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03334-8 |
_version_ | 1783612624514056192 |
---|---|
author | Denona, Branko Foley, Michael Mahony, Rhona Robson, Michael |
author_facet | Denona, Branko Foley, Michael Mahony, Rhona Robson, Michael |
author_sort | Denona, Branko |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To demonstrate that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference in the labour outcome among induced nulliparous and multiparous women. METHODS: Obstetric outcome, specifically caesarean section rates, among induced term nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous caesarean section were analyzed in this cross-sectional study using the Robson 10 group classification for the year 2016. RESULTS: In the total number of 8851 women delivered in 2016, the caesarean section rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.84% (151/1925) and 32.63% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.37% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B (Robson M, Fetal Matern Med Rev, 12; 23–39, 2001) were 3.91% (133/3397) and 2.86% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference between nulliparous and multiparous women. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7682001 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76820012020-11-23 Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study Denona, Branko Foley, Michael Mahony, Rhona Robson, Michael BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: To demonstrate that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference in the labour outcome among induced nulliparous and multiparous women. METHODS: Obstetric outcome, specifically caesarean section rates, among induced term nulliparous and multiparous women without a previous caesarean section were analyzed in this cross-sectional study using the Robson 10 group classification for the year 2016. RESULTS: In the total number of 8851 women delivered in 2016, the caesarean section rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.84% (151/1925) and 32.63% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.37% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B (Robson M, Fetal Matern Med Rev, 12; 23–39, 2001) were 3.91% (133/3397) and 2.86% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity as there is a significant difference between nulliparous and multiparous women. BioMed Central 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7682001/ /pubmed/33225906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03334-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Denona, Branko Foley, Michael Mahony, Rhona Robson, Michael Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title | Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title_full | Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title_short | Discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
title_sort | discrimination by parity is a prerequisite for assessing induction of labour outcome – cross-sectional study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7682001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33225906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03334-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT denonabranko discriminationbyparityisaprerequisiteforassessinginductionoflabouroutcomecrosssectionalstudy AT foleymichael discriminationbyparityisaprerequisiteforassessinginductionoflabouroutcomecrosssectionalstudy AT mahonyrhona discriminationbyparityisaprerequisiteforassessinginductionoflabouroutcomecrosssectionalstudy AT robsonmichael discriminationbyparityisaprerequisiteforassessinginductionoflabouroutcomecrosssectionalstudy |