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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Denona, Branko, Foley, Michael, Mahony, Rhona, Robson, Michael
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