Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women

Open access
Grobman, William A., Rice, Madeline M., Reddy, Uma M., Tita, Alan T.N., Silver, Robert M., Mallett, Gail, Hill, Kim, Thom, Elizabeth A., El-Sayed, Yasser Y., Perez-Delboy, Annette, Rouse, Dwight J., Saade, George R., Boggess, Kim A., Chauhan, Suneet P., Iams, Jay D., Chien, Edward K., Casey, Brian M., Gibbs, Ronald S., Srinivas, Sindhu K., Swamy, Geeta K., Simhan, Hyagriv N., Macones, George A.·2018·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The perinatal and maternal consequences of induction of labor at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned low-risk nulliparous women who were at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation to labor induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications; the principal secondary outcome was cesarean delivery. RESULTS: A total of 3062 women were assigned to labor induction, and 3044 were assigned to expectant management. The primary outcome occurred in 4.3% of neonates in the induction group and in 5.4% in the expectant-management group (relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.00). The frequency of cesarean delivery was significantly lower in the induction group than in the expectant-management group (18.6% vs. 22.2%; relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly lower frequency of a composite adverse perinatal outcome, but it did result in a significantly lower frequency of cesarean delivery. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ARRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01990612 .).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1800566

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,167

Metadata

Authors
Grobman, W. A., Rice, M. M., Reddy, U. M., Tita, A. T. N., Silver, R. M., Mallett, G., Hill, K., Thom, E. A., El-Sayed, Y. Y., Perez-Delboy, A., Rouse, D. J., Saade, G. R., Boggess, K. A., Chauhan, S. P., Iams, J. D., Chien, E. K., Casey, B. M., Gibbs, R. S., Srinivas, S. K., Swamy, G. K., Simhan, H. N., & Macones, G. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2018-08-09
Volume
379
Issue
6
Pages
513-523
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2887854776
Cited by
1,167
References
2
FWCI
109.80
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: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1800566
The paper
Grobman, W. A., Rice, M. M., Reddy, U. M., Tita, A. T. N., Silver, R. M., Mallett, G., Hill, K., Thom, E. A., El-Sayed, Y. Y., Perez-Delboy, A., Rouse, D. J., Saade, G. R., Boggess, K. A., Chauhan, S. P., Iams, J. D., Chien, E. K., Casey, B. M., Gibbs, R. S., Srinivas, S. K., . . . Macones, G. A. (2018). Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1800566

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.