Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety.

This review assessed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic agents (prostaglandins, oxytocin, mifepristone, hyaluronidase, and nitric oxide donors) and mechanical methods (single- and double-balloon catheters, laminaria, membrane stripping, and amniotomy) and those generally considered under the rubric of complementary medicine (castor oil, nipple stimulation, sexual intercourse, herbal medicine, and acupuncture). A substantial body of published reports, including 2 large network meta-analyses, support the safety and efficacy of misoprostol (PGE1) when used for cervical ripening and labor induction. Misoprostol administered vaginally at doses of 50 µg has the highest probability of achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Regardless of dosing, route, and schedule of administration, when used for cervical ripening and labor induction, prostaglandin E2 seems to have similar efficacy in decreasing cesarean delivery rates. Globally, although oxytocin represents the most widely used pharmacologic agent for labor induction, its effectiveness is highly dependent on parity and cervical status. Oxytocin is more effective than expectant management in inducing labor, and the efficacy of oxytocin is enhanced when combined with amniotomy. However, prostaglandins administered vaginally or intracervically are more effective in inducing labor than oxytocin. A single 200-mg oral tablet of mifepristone seems to represent the lowest effective dose for cervical ripening. The bulk of the literature assessing relaxin suggests this agent has limited benefit when used for this indication. Although intracervical injection of hyaluronidase may cause cervical ripening, the need for intracervical administration has limited the use of this agent. Concerning the vaginal administration of nitric oxide donors, including isosorbide mononitrate, isosorbide, nitroglycerin, and sodium nitroprusside, the higher incidence of side effects with these agents has limited their use. A synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator has been found to be effective for preinduction cervical ripening. Although a pharmacologic agent may be administered after the use of the synthetic hygroscopic dilator, in an attempt to reduce the interval to vaginal delivery, concomitant use of mechanical and pharmacologic methods is being explored. Combining the use of a single-balloon catheter with dinoprostone, misoprostol, or oxytocin enhances the efficacy of these pharmacologic agents in cervical ripening and labor induction. The efficacy of single- and double-balloon catheters in cervical ripening and labor induction seems similar. To date, the combination of misoprostol with an intracervical catheter seems to be the best approach when balancing delivery times with safety. Although complementary methods are occasionally used by patients, given the lack of data documenting their efficacy and safety, these methods are rarely used in hospital settings.

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to conduct a thorough and contemporary assessment of maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth in comparison with land-based birth. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and gray literature sources, from inception to February 28, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who delivered either conventionally or while submerged in water. METHODS: Pooled unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method). We assessed the 95% prediction intervals to estimate the likely range of future study results. To evaluate the robustness of the results, we calculated fragility indices. Maternal infection was designated as the primary outcome, whereas postpartum hemorrhage, perineal lacerations, obstetrical anal sphincter injury, umbilical cord avulsion, low Apgar scores, neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation, neonatal infection, neonatal mortality within 30 days of birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission were considered secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 20,642 articles identified, 52 were included in the meta-analyses. Based on data from observational studies, water birth was not associated with increased probability of maternal infection compared with land birth (10 articles, 113,395 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.14). Patients undergoing water birth had decreased odds of postpartum hemorrhage (21 articles, 149,732 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94). Neonates delivered while submerged in water had increased odds of cord avulsion (10 articles, 91,504 pregnancies; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.24) and decreased odds of low Apgar scores (21 articles, 165,917 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.82), neonatal infection (15 articles, 53,635 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97), neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation (19 articles, 181,001 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.84), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (30 articles, 287,698 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.70). CONCLUSION: When compared with land birth, water birth does not appear to increase the risk of most maternal and neonatal complications. Like any other delivery method, water birth has its unique considerations and potential risks, which health care providers and expectant parents should evaluate thoroughly. However, with proper precautions in place, water birth can be a reasonable choice for mothers and newborns, in facilities equipped to conduct water births safely.

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic) in generating accurate references from existing obstetric literature. STUDY DESIGN: Between mid-March and late April 2023, ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic were prompted to provide references for specific obstetrical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2020. RCTs were considered for inclusion if they were mentioned in a previous article that primarily evaluated RCTs published by the top medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals with the highest impact factors in 2020 as well as RCTs published in a new journal focused on publishing obstetric RCTs. The selection of the three AI models was based on their popularity, performance in natural language processing, and public availability. Data collection involved prompting the AI chatbots to provide references according to a standardized protocol. The primary evaluation metric was the accuracy of each AI model in correctly citing references, including authors, publication title, journal name, and digital object identifier (DOI). Statistical analysis was performed using a permutation test to compare the performance of the AI models. RESULTS: Among the 44 RCTs analyzed, Google Bard demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly citing 13.6% of the requested RCTs, whereas ChatGPT and Chatsonic exhibited lower accuracy rates of 2.4 and 0%, respectively. Google Bard often substantially outperformed Chatsonic and ChatGPT in correctly citing the studied reference components. The majority of references from all AI models studied were noted to provide DOIs for unrelated studies or DOIs that do not exist. CONCLUSION: To ensure the reliability of scientific information being disseminated, authors must exercise caution when utilizing AI for scientific writing and literature search. However, despite their limitations, collaborative partnerships between AI systems and researchers have the potential to drive synergistic advancements, leading to improved patient care and outcomes. KEY POINTS: · AI chatbots often cite scientific articles incorrectly.. · AI chatbots can create false references.. · Responsible AI use in research is vital..

Intrapartum amnioinfusion reduces meconium aspiration syndrome and improves neonatal outcomes in patients with meconium-stained fluid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reassess the effect of prophylactic transcervical amnioinfusion for intrapartum meconium-stained amniotic fluid on meconium aspiration syndrome and other adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: From inception to November 2021, a systematic search of the literature was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and gray literature sources. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We identified randomized controlled trials of patients with intrapartum moderate to thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid that evaluated the effect of amnioinfusion on adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. METHODS: Of note, 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and gauged study quality by assigning a modified Jadad score. Meconium aspiration syndrome constituted the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were meconium below the cords, Apgar scores of <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal acidosis, cesarean delivery, cesarean delivery for fetal heart rate abnormalities, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and postpartum endometritis. This study calculated the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 randomized studies with 5994 participants met the inclusion criteria. The overall odds of meconium aspiration syndrome was reduced by 67% in the amnioinfusion group (pooled odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.51). Except for postpartum endometritis, amnioinfusion was associated with a significant reduction in all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the use of intrapartum amnioinfusion in the setting of meconium-stained amniotic fluid significantly reduces the odds of meconium aspiration syndrome and other adverse neonatal outcomes.