FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W418566085> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W418566085 endingPage "381" @default.
• W418566085 startingPage "380" @default.
• W418566085 abstract "The issue of induction of labour and risk of Caesarean section has been a topic of recent discussion, catalyzed by the publication of a new review paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.1.Mishanina E. Rogozinska E. Thatthi T. Uddin-Khan R. Khan K.S. et al.Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar In response to an influx of queries regarding the CMAJ paper and its potential effect on SOG guidelines, the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee has reviewed the SOGC Induction of Labour guidelines published in 20132.Leduc D. Biringer A. Lee L. Dy J. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee, Society of Obsetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Induction of labour. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 296, September 2013.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 36: 248-252Google Scholar and concluded that no update or revision to the SOGC is required at this time. The committee emphasized that the CMAJ meta-analysis included no new information or studies that were not used in the 2013 SOGC guideline.It is also important to note that results from the CMAJ review paper report on an induction group encompassing all indications for induction of labour, with term labour defined as 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation and measured outcomes limited to Caesarean section. The SOGC guideline recommends requiring an obstetrical or medical indication (e.g. premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction) for induction of labour before 41 weeks. This is consistent with guidelines published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.The data does confirm that induction of labour for specific indications is not associated with higher risk of Caesarean section and in some indications, such as post-term induction, it lowers the risk of Caesarean section. It is important to note that these study findings should not be generalized to any and all inductions of labour, especially when no indications exist; SOGC stands by its recommendation that induction of labour should be carried out only after careful discussion with women who have specific indications.The SOGC is aware of two clinical trials underway that are examining induction of labour versus expectant management.3.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE). US National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD2014http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01990612?term=ARRIVE&rank=2Google Scholar, 4.Nottingham Clinical Trials UnitInduction of labour versus expectant management for women over 35 years of age. NCTU, Nothingham, GB2013http://www.35-39trial.orgGoogle Scholar The outcomes of these studies will be monitored by the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee for potential change of practice implications.It is to be noted that, to ensure the best quality of care, the SOGC is currently developing a standard of practice under which evidence will be reviewed on a regular basis to decide whether all or part of a guideline should be updated based on new robust (Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care5.Woolf S.H. Battista R.N. Angerson G.M. Logan A.G. Eel W. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health CareNew grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.CMAJ. 2003; 169: 207-208PubMed Google Scholar level I) evidence. The issue of induction of labour and risk of Caesarean section has been a topic of recent discussion, catalyzed by the publication of a new review paper in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.1.Mishanina E. Rogozinska E. Thatthi T. Uddin-Khan R. Khan K.S. et al.Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ. 2014; 186: 665-673Crossref PubMed Scopus (187) Google Scholar In response to an influx of queries regarding the CMAJ paper and its potential effect on SOG guidelines, the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee has reviewed the SOGC Induction of Labour guidelines published in 20132.Leduc D. Biringer A. Lee L. Dy J. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee, Society of Obsetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Induction of labour. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 296, September 2013.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013; 36: 248-252Google Scholar and concluded that no update or revision to the SOGC is required at this time. The committee emphasized that the CMAJ meta-analysis included no new information or studies that were not used in the 2013 SOGC guideline. It is also important to note that results from the CMAJ review paper report on an induction group encompassing all indications for induction of labour, with term labour defined as 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation and measured outcomes limited to Caesarean section. The SOGC guideline recommends requiring an obstetrical or medical indication (e.g. premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction) for induction of labour before 41 weeks. This is consistent with guidelines published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The data does confirm that induction of labour for specific indications is not associated with higher risk of Caesarean section and in some indications, such as post-term induction, it lowers the risk of Caesarean section. It is important to note that these study findings should not be generalized to any and all inductions of labour, especially when no indications exist; SOGC stands by its recommendation that induction of labour should be carried out only after careful discussion with women who have specific indications. The SOGC is aware of two clinical trials underway that are examining induction of labour versus expectant management.3.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE). US National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD2014http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01990612?term=ARRIVE&rank=2Google Scholar, 4.Nottingham Clinical Trials UnitInduction of labour versus expectant management for women over 35 years of age. NCTU, Nothingham, GB2013http://www.35-39trial.orgGoogle Scholar The outcomes of these studies will be monitored by the Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee for potential change of practice implications. It is to be noted that, to ensure the best quality of care, the SOGC is currently developing a standard of practice under which evidence will be reviewed on a regular basis to decide whether all or part of a guideline should be updated based on new robust (Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care5.Woolf S.H. Battista R.N. Angerson G.M. Logan A.G. Eel W. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health CareNew grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.CMAJ. 2003; 169: 207-208PubMed Google Scholar level I) evidence." @default.
• W418566085 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W418566085 creator A5012026569 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5017107551 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5024828182 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5025835428 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5040358808 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5043369871 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5046094988 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5050302021 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5052302574 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5067121755 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5071151978 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5072442902 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5074230239 @default.
• W418566085 creator A5080488587 @default.
• W418566085 date "2015-04-01" @default.
• W418566085 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W418566085 title "RETIRED: Induction of Labour: Review" @default.
• W418566085 cites W2108274547 @default.
• W418566085 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30290-5" @default.
• W418566085 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26001692" @default.
• W418566085 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W418566085 type Work @default.
• W418566085 sameAs 418566085 @default.
• W418566085 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852015 @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852016 @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852018 @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852021 @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852022 @default.
• W418566085 countsByYear W4185660852023 @default.
• W418566085 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5012026569 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5017107551 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5024828182 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5025835428 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5040358808 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5043369871 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5046094988 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5050302021 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5052302574 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5067121755 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5071151978 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5072442902 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5074230239 @default.
• W418566085 hasAuthorship W418566085A5080488587 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C2776176026 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C2780802667 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C3017551526 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W418566085 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C126322002 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C2776176026 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C2779234561 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C2780802667 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C3017551526 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C54355233 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C71924100 @default.
• W418566085 hasConceptScore W418566085C86803240 @default.
• W418566085 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W418566085 hasLocation W4185660851 @default.
• W418566085 hasLocation W4185660852 @default.
• W418566085 hasOpenAccess W418566085 @default.
• W418566085 hasPrimaryLocation W4185660851 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W1020203672 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2070427553 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2236207431 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2341487624 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2400082882 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2433547462 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2746240631 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2905848311 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W4252448962 @default.
• W418566085 hasRelatedWork W2418368247 @default.
• W418566085 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W418566085 isParatext "false" @default.
• W418566085 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W418566085 magId "418566085" @default.
• W418566085 workType "article" @default.