Physicians who induce labor for fetal macrosomia do not reduce cesarean delivery rates

Journal of Perinatology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 93-96

  Horrigan, Terrence J ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MACROSOMIA; PARITY; PREGNANCY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; FETAL MACROSOMIA; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; PARITY; PREGNANCY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0035287159     PISSN: 07438346     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jp.7200500     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Friesen CD, Miller AM, Rayburn WF. Influence of spontaneous or induced labor on delivering the macrosomic fetus. Am J Perinatol 1995;12(1):63-6.
2. Gonen O, Rosen DJ, Dolfin Z, Tepper R, Markov S, Feijgin MD. Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(6):913-7.
3. Conway DL, Langer O. Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178(5):922-5.
4. Mathews TJ. Trends in stimulation and induction of labor 1989-1995. Stat Bull - Metropolitan Insurance Companies 1997;78(4):20-6.
5. Prysak M, Castronova FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-controlled analysis of safety and efficiency. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(1):47-52.