The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Induction of Labor as Compared with Serial Antenatal Monitoring in Post-Term Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The rates of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity are higher for post-term pregnancies than for term pregnancies. It is not known, however, whether the induction of labor results in better outcomes than does serial fetal monitoring while awaiting spontaneous labor. METHODS: We studied 3407 women with uncomplicated pregnancies of 41 or more weeks' duration. The women were randomly assigned to undergo induction of labor or to have serial antenatal monitoring and spontaneous labor unless there was evidence of fetal or maternal compromise, in which case labor was induced or cesarean section was performed. In the induction group, labor was induced by the intracervical application of prostaglandin E2. Serial antenatal monitoring consisted of counts of fetal kicks, nonstress tests, and assessments of amniotic-fluid volume. The outcomes we measured were the rates of perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, and delivery by cesarean section. RESULTS: Among the 1701 women in the induction group, 360 (21.2 percent) underwent cesarean section, as compared with 418 (24.5 percent) of the 1706 women in the monitoring group (P = 0.03). This difference resulted from a lower rate of cesarean section performed because of fetal distress among the women in the induction group (5.7 percent vs. 8.3 percent, P = 0.003). When two infants with lethal congenital anomalies were excluded, there were no perinatal deaths in the induction group and two stillbirths in the monitoring group (P not significant). The frequency of neonatal morbidity was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In post-term pregnancy, the induction of labor results in a lower rate of cesarean section than serial antenatal monitoring; the rates of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity are similar with the two approaches to management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S. A., Hodnett, E. D., Saigal, S., & Willan, A. R. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3 · Cited by 1,556
Self-citationEtiology and prevention of stillbirth
Fretts, R. C. (2005) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.03.074 · Cited by 462
First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes
Caughey, A. B., Nicholson, J. M., & Washington, A. E. (2008) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.034 · Cited by 169
Antenatal home blood pressure monitoring: a pilot randomised controlled trial
Ross‐McGill, H., Hewison, J., Hirst, J., Dowswell, T., Holt, A., Brunskill, P., & Thornton, J. G. (2000) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11692.x · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hellmann, J., Hewson, S., Milner, R., Willan, A., & the Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group*
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1992-06-11
- Volume
- 326
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 1587-1592
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2334025156
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Induction of Labor as Compared with Serial Antenatal Monitoring in Post-Term Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199206113262402
- The paper
- Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hellmann, J., Hewson, S., Milner, R., Willan, A., & the Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group*. (1992). Induction of Labor as Compared with Serial Antenatal Monitoring in Post-Term Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199206113262402
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.