English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Introduction: Induction of labour (IOL) is a relatively common procedure in the present obstetrics practice. Decision is made by obstetricians when the extra uterine life is more favourable for the baby than intrauterine environment. However there is evidence that IOL may adversely affect both maternal and perinatal health. Methods: A group of 75 mothers who underwent IOL was compared with an age-matched sample of same number of mothers who underwent spontaneous onset of labour (SOL) at term at Teaching Hospital Mahamodara. Data were collected from bed head tickets. Main maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the basic demographic characteristics of the two groups. Mothers with IOL had significantly high rates of caesarean section (p=0.011) and prolonged hospital stay (p Conclusions: Mothers who underwent elective IOL at term had increased rate of cesarean section and prolonged hospital stay when compared to mothers who had SOL. The two groups were comparable with regards to adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes.

Adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes of elective induction of labour at term vs spontaneous onset of labour; a comparison study