See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Branko Denona
St Luke's General Hospital Carlow/Kilkenny
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4410-9900
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objective: 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 using the Robson 10 group classification 2 for the year 2016.
Results: The caesarean rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.8% (151/1925) and 32.6% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.4% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B 2 were 3.9% (133/3397) and 2.8% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term.
Conclusion: The data strongly suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity and should probably be confined to nulliparous women.
Keywords
nulliparous women, multiparous women, induction of labour
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 02 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jun, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 19 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 25 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Maternal & Fetal Medicine
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Branko Denona
St Luke's General Hospital Carlow/Kilkenny
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4410-9900
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 02 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Jun, 2020
Version 1
Posted 15 Nov, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 19 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 20 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 16 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 25 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Maternal & Fetal Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.
Objective: 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 using the Robson 10 group classification 2 for the year 2016.
Results: The caesarean rates among nulliparous women in spontaneous and induced labour, Robson groups 1 and 2A, were 7.8% (151/1925) and 32.6% (437/1339) respectively and among multiparous (excluding those women with a previous caesarean section), Robson group 3 and 4A were 1%(24/2389) and 4.4% (44/1005), respectively. Pre labour caesarean rates for nulliparous and multiparous women, Robson groups 2B and 4B 2 were 3.9% (133/3397) and 2.8% (100/3494), of the respective single cephalic cohort at term.
Conclusion: The data strongly suggests that studies on induction of labour should be analyzed by parity and should probably be confined to nulliparous women.
Loading...