American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm最新文献

{"title":"Digital versus speculum-based balloon catheter insertion for labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Densearn Seo ,&nbsp;Rashvinder Kaur ,&nbsp;Meghna Prasannan Ponganam ,&nbsp;Kah Wai Sam ,&nbsp;Maclean Hill ,&nbsp;Miranda Davies-Tuck ,&nbsp;Ritesh Rikain Warty ,&nbsp;Vinayak Smith ,&nbsp;Thiam Chye Tan ,&nbsp;Deborah Fox ,&nbsp;Kirsten R Palmer","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101519","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101519","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Induction of labor is commonly undertaken when ongoing pregnancy poses a risk to either the mother or fetus. Often cervical preparation is required with mechanical methods increasingly popular due to their improved safety. This study evaluates the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of digital versus speculum-based balloon insertion for cervical preparation, aiming to identify gaps and inform future research.</div></div><div><h3>Data source</h3><div>PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from database inception until 30 June 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3><div>Included studies were randomized controlled trials comparing digital versus speculum-based insertion of catheter-related balloons for labor induction in individuals with viable singleton pregnancies, in both inpatient and outpatient settings, written in English. Exclusions included studies not using cervical balloons, comparisons to nonballoon methods, nonhuman studies, and nonprimary literature like guidelines, reviews, commentaries, and opinion pieces.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Title and abstract screening were performed by 4 authors. Full-text articles were assessed against inclusion criteria. Selection was agreed upon by consensus among 3 authors, with a fourth consulted for disputes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 for randomized trials. A meta-analysis was also performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Out of 3397 studies, 4 met the inclusion criteria, all being randomized controlled trials with some concerns in at least one domain but no high risk of bias. Two studies found digital insertion significantly less painful than speculum-based insertion (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), while one reported no difference (<em>P</em>=.72). Maternal satisfaction was comparable, with one study favoring digital insertion (<em>P</em>=.011). Meta-analysis findings for other outcome measures suggest no difference between speculum or digital insertion. However, due to substantial heterogeneity, findings for procedural time, time from induction to delivery, and epidural rate should be cautiously interpreted.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Digital insertion for cervical preparation appears associated with reduced pain and higher patient acceptability compared to speculum-based insertion. Additionally, efficacy and safety were comparable, indicating it is a preferable option for clinical use. There was no difference in other procedural, obstetric, or neonatal outcomes, however, more rigorous research employing standardized outcome measures is needed to facilitate a clinically meaningful interpretation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 12","pages":"Article 101519"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142393959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Complications associated with oral glucose testing in pregnant patients with prior bariatric surgery","authors":"Frank I. Jackson DO,&nbsp;Nathan A. Keller MD,&nbsp;Insaf Kouba MD,&nbsp;Alexis Palmer BA,&nbsp;Sarika Arora BA,&nbsp;Jolene Muscat MD,&nbsp;Luis A. Bracero MD,&nbsp;Matthew J. Blitz MD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101509","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101509","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 12","pages":"Article 101509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142393958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The effects of proton pump inhibitors during pregnancy on treatment of preeclampsia and related outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Kate Mills MPH ,&nbsp;Annie R.A. McDougall PhD ,&nbsp;Annie Tan MPH ,&nbsp;Maureen Makama PhD ,&nbsp;Phi-Yen Nguyen MPH ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Armari MBBS, DRANZCOG ,&nbsp;Zoe Bradfield PhD ,&nbsp;Roxanne Hastie PhD ,&nbsp;Anne Ammerdorffer PhD ,&nbsp;A. Metin Gülmezoglu PhD ,&nbsp;Joshua P. Vogel PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101478","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101478","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>This systematic review evaluated the available evidence on the effects of proton pump inhibitors during pregnancy on preeclampsia and related maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>DATA SOURCES</h3><div>Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Global Medicus Index) were searched on November 17, 2023.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA</h3><div>Randomized controlled trials of pregnant women who used any class or dose of proton pump inhibitor were eligible.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>A meta-analysis was conducted for all outcomes of interest using random-effects models. Results were presented as risk ratios or mean difference. Quality assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment was completed to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under identifier CRD42023423673.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>Our search identified 3879 records that were screened independently by 2 authors. Nine reports (describing 8 trials) met our eligibility criteria, however, 6 trials were ultimately excluded from our analysis because women were only given proton pump inhibitors immediately before cesarean delivery for acid aspiration prevention. The 2 trials that were included in the meta-analysis evaluated the treatment of 177 women with diagnosed preeclampsia. For the primary outcomes, moderate-certainty evidence showed that the use of proton pump inhibitors likely has no effect on the risk for hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count syndrome (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–3.99; I²=0%) or perinatal mortality (risk ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.36–1.79; I²=0%), and there were insufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis on all other primary outcomes, including eclampsia and neonatal mortality. No trials investigated the use of proton pump inhibitors for the prevention of preeclampsia.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>Given the limited outcome data, we are uncertain about the effect of proton pump inhibitors on women with preeclampsia. Further trials are required to determine what (if any) effects proton pump inhibitors might have for preeclampsia prevention or treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101478"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Genomic abnormalities in apparently isolated polyhydramnios and the role of confirmed fetal phenotype: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Evangelia Tsakmaki MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Athina Ververi MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Christos Chatzakis MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Paolo Cavoretto MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Alexandros Sotiriadis MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101469","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101469","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;OBJECTIVE&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the rate of genomic abnormalities detected in pregnancies with apparently isolated hydramnios and to explore the role of confirmed fetal phenotype.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;DATA SOURCES&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases were searched up to May 4, 2024.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Observational studies that were published after the year 2000, written in a European language, and that reported the genomic outcomes of pregnancies complicated by prenatally diagnosed isolated polyhydramnios were included in this meta-analysis.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;METHODS&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The main outcome was the incidence of genomic abnormalities, defined as chromosomal numerical or structural anomalies or monogenic syndromes, that were diagnosed prenatally or postnatally in neonates from pregnancies complicated by isolated polyhydramnios. Additional outcomes included the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities, including both numerical and structural aberrations of the chromosomes (detected by karyotype or chromosomal microarray), monogenic abnormalities (detected by next-generation sequencing or clinical genetic examination after the result of a normal karyotype or chromosomal microarray), genetic syndromes in general (diagnosed clinically with or without genetic confirmation), and structural abnormalities detected postnatally. Pooled proportions were calculated for each outcome.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;RESULTS&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;A total of 12 studies (2561 pregnancies complicated by isolated hydramnios) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of genomic anomalies in fetuses with apparently isolated polyhydramnios (12 studies, 2634 fetuses) was 4.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.6–7.6). The pooled prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities (11 studies, 2427 fetuses) was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.7). The proportion of major structural defects detected postnatally (9 studies, 1731 fetuses) was 2.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.5–5.4); in this particular subgroup (4 studies, 14 fetuses), the pooled prevalence of genomic anomalies was 29.8% (95% confidence interval, 11.3–58.6). A meta-regression analysis indicated that the rate of genomic anomalies was positively associated with the severity of hydramnios. In addition, the pooled rate of monogenic anomalies was 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 2–5; I&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;=58%) in the 2 studies that used next-generation sequencing for genomic diagnosis.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;CONCLUSION&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This meta-analysis showed that the rate of genomic anomalies in apparently isolated polyhydramnios is 4.5%; approximately half of them are chromosomal abnormalities and the other half are nonchromosomal genomic anomalies. From a clinical standpoint, chromosomal microarray analysis and possibly next-generation sequencing could be considered even in cases of apparently isolated polyhydramnio","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101469"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142047297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Expedited versus standard postpartum discharge in patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and its effect on the postpartum course","authors":"Alina Tvina MD ,&nbsp;Anna Palatnik MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101475","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101475","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Hospital stay after an uncomplicated delivery is typically 2 days for vaginal birth and 3 days for cesarean birth. Health maintenance organizations and third-party payers have encouraged shorter maternity stays. The safety of earlier discharge is unclear particularly when it comes to patients diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To examine whether expedited discharge amongst patients with HDP will have a negative effect on postpartum readmission rate and blood pressure related complications.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>This was a single academic center retrospective cohort study of patients with HDP (gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or chronic hypertension) for 2 epochs: 2015–2018, prior to implementation of an expedited discharge policy, and 2019–2020 after hospital wide implementation of expedited postpartum discharge. The expedited discharge policy entailed patients being discharged home as soon as day 1 after a vaginal delivery and day 2 after a cesarean delivery. The primary outcome was unplanned health care utilization postpartum, defined as emergency department (ED) visits, unscheduled clinic visits, and hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes were planned postpartum visits attendance, antihypertensive medication initiation after discharge, and blood pressure control throughout the first year. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were run to evaluate the association between expedited discharge and primary and secondary outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1,441 patients were included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of unplanned health care utilization (11.3% in the standard postpartum discharge group vs. 13.8% in the expedited discharge group, <em>P</em>=.17). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures did not differ between the groups at 1–2 weeks, six weeks, and one year postpartum. Patients in the expedited discharge group were more likely to attend the 1–2-week postpartum blood pressure check (58.7% vs. 51.7%, <em>P</em>=.02, adjusted OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08–1.77). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the two cohort groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this single academic center study, expedited discharge after delivery in patients with HDP was not associated with a higher rate of unplanned healthcare utilization postpartum.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101475"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142112973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Activity restriction and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes","authors":"Laura C. Ha MD ,&nbsp;Mariam Naqvi MD ,&nbsp;Patrick Conley MS ,&nbsp;C. Noel Bairey Merz MD ,&nbsp;Bethany Barone Gibbs PhD ,&nbsp;Lisa D. Levine MD, MSCE ,&nbsp;George A. Saade MD ,&nbsp;Sarah Kilpatrick MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Natalie A. Bello MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101470","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101470","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Activity restriction is a common recommendation given to patients during pregnancy for various indications, despite lack of definitive data showing improvements in pregnancy outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine if activity restriction (AR) in pregnancy is associated with decreased odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) prospective cohort. Nulliparous singletons were followed at 8 sites from October 2010–September 2013. Demographic and clinical data were collected at 4 timepoints, and participants were surveyed about AR recommendations at 22w0d-29w6d and delivery. We excluded participants missing data on AR and age. Participants were grouped according to history of AR, and APOs included: gestational hypertension (gHTN), preeclampsia/eclampsia, preterm birth (PTB), and small for gestational age (SGA) neonate. Associations between AR and APOs were examined using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for <em>a priori</em> identified APO risk factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 10,038 nuMoM2b participants, 9,312 met inclusion criteria and 1,386 (14.9%) were recommended AR; participants identifying as Black (aOR 0.81 [95% CI 0.68–0.98]) or Hispanic (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.61–0.87]) were less likely to be placed on AR when compared to those identifying as White. Overall, 3,197 (34.3%) experienced at least one APO (717 [51.7%] of participants with AR compared to 2,480 [31.3%] participants without AR). After adjustment for baseline differences, the AR group had increased odds of gHTN (aOR 1.61 [95% CI 1.35–1.92]), preeclampsia/eclampsia (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 2.06–3.09]) and iatrogenic and spontaneous PTB (aOR 2.98 [95% CI 2.41–3.69]), but not delivery of an SGA neonate.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>AR in pregnancy was independently associated with increased odds of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and PTB, but future prospective work is needed to determine potential causality. Further, participants identifying as Black or Hispanic were significantly less likely to be recommended AR compared to those identifying as White. While AR is not an evidence-based practice, these findings suggest bias may impact which patients receive advice to limit activity in pregnancy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101470"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142047293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cochrane Update: news and reviews from the Cochrane US Network","authors":"Chris E. Philip MD ,&nbsp;Ethan Litman MD ,&nbsp;Barbara O'Brien MD ,&nbsp;Jeanne-Marie Guise MD, MPH, MBA ,&nbsp;David M. Haas MD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101473","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101473","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101473"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142074126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Oxytocin regimen used for induction of labor and pregnancy outcomes","authors":"Uma M. Reddy MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Grecio J. Sandoval PhD ,&nbsp;Alan T.N. Tita MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Robert M. Silver MD ,&nbsp;Gail Mallett RN, MS, CCRC ,&nbsp;Kim Hill RN, BSN ,&nbsp;Yasser Y. El-Sayed MD ,&nbsp;Madeline Murguia Rice PhD ,&nbsp;Ronald J. Wapner MD ,&nbsp;Dwight J. Rouse MD ,&nbsp;George R. Saade MD ,&nbsp;John M. Thorp Jr MD ,&nbsp;Suneet P. Chauhan MD, Hon DSc ,&nbsp;Maged M. Costantine MD ,&nbsp;Edward K. Chien MD ,&nbsp;Brian M. Casey MD ,&nbsp;Sindhu K. Srinivas MD, MSCE ,&nbsp;Geeta K. Swamy MD ,&nbsp;Hyagriv N. Simhan MD ,&nbsp;George A. Macones MD, MSCE ,&nbsp;William A. Grobman MD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101508","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101508","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;BACKGROUND&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Following the results of the A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management trial, which demonstrated a reduction in cesarean delivery with no increase in adverse perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous patients at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management, the use of induction of labor has increased. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend mid- to high-dose regimens over low-dose regimens for routine induction of labor.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;OBJECTIVE&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This study aimed to evaluate the association between oxytocin regimen and cesarean delivery and an adverse perinatal composite outcome in low-risk nulliparous patients undergoing induction of labor at ≥39 weeks of gestation.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;STUDY DESIGN&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This was a secondary analysis of the &lt;em&gt;Eunice Kennedy Shriver&lt;/em&gt; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network's A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management randomized trial. Patients who received a mid- to high-dose oxytocin regimen (starting or incremental increase &gt;2 mU/min) were compared with those who received a low-dose oxytocin regimen (starting and incremental increase ≤2 mU/min). The co-primary outcomes for this secondary analysis were (1) cesarean delivery and (2) composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative risks and 97.5% confidence intervals for the co-primary endpoints and 95% confidence intervals for binomial outcomes, and multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios and 95% adjusted relative risks for multinomial outcomes.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;RESULTS&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Of 6106 participants enrolled in the primary trial, 2933 underwent induction of labor with oxytocin: 861 in the mid- to high-dose group and 2072 in the low-dose group. The lower frequency of cesarean delivery in the mid- to high-dose group than in the low-dose group (20.3% vs 25.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.94) was not significant after adjustment (adjusted relative risk, 0.90; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.76–1.07). The composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications was more frequent in the mid- to high-dose group than in the low-dose group (6.7% vs 4.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–2.14) and remained significant after adjustment (adjusted relative risk, 1.61; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.11–2.35). Most cases in the composite were from the respiratory support (5.2% in the mid- to high-dose group vs 3.1% in the low-dose group) component, with an increase in transient tachypnea in newborns (3.8% in the mid- to high-dose group vs 2.5% in the low-dose group; adjusted relative risk, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–2.54). The duration of neonatal respiratory support for 1 day was sign","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 12","pages":"Article 101508"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142366790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Corrigendum to ‘Prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies’ American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM/ Volume 4 (2022) 100551","authors":"Amanda Roman MD ,&nbsp;Alexandra Ramirez MD ,&nbsp;Nathan S. Fox MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101493","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101493","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 10","pages":"Article 101493"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142322073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Medication Adherence Scale for pregnant patients taking aspirin","authors":"Rachel S. Ruderman MD, MPH,&nbsp;Sunitha C. Suresh MD,&nbsp;Ashish Premkumar MD, PhD,&nbsp;Jungeun Lee MS,&nbsp;Olivert Mbah MPH,&nbsp;Melinique Walls BA,&nbsp;Emily White Vangompel MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101504","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101504","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36186,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Mfm","volume":"6 11","pages":"Article 101504"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142355718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}