<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="review-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Акушерство и гинекология</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">0300-9092</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2412-5679</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Bionika Media</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">691923</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18565/aig.2025.190</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Reviews</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Обзоры</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Review Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">A modern perspective on the issue of labor induction: time of delivery in various obstetric and extragenital pathologies</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Современный взгляд на проблему индукции родов: сроки родоразрешения при различной акушерской и экстрагенитальной патологии</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1705-9554</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Mamedova</surname><given-names>Mekhri A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Мамедова</surname><given-names>Мехри Аймамедовна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>PhD, obstetrician-gynecologist at the Maternity Department</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>к.м.н., врач акушер-гинеколог родильного отделения</p></bio><email>mmekhri@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-3032</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Kapustin</surname><given-names>Roman V.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Капустин</surname><given-names>Роман Викторович</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, Maternity Department</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>д.м.н., заведующий отделом акушерства и перинатологии, родильным отделением</p></bio><email>kapustin.roman@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-5953</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Bespalova</surname><given-names>Olesya N.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Беспалова</surname><given-names>Олеся Николаевна</given-names></name></name-alternatives><address><country country="RU">Russian Federation</country></address><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Dr. Med. Sci., Deputy Director for Research</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>д.м.н., заместитель директора по научной работе</p></bio><email>shiggerra@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">ФГБНУ «Научно-исследовательский институт акушерства, гинекологии и репродуктологии имени Д.О. Отта»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2025-10-09" publication-format="electronic"><day>09</day><month>10</month><year>2025</year></pub-date><issue>9</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en"/><issue-title xml:lang="ru"/><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>15</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2025-10-03"><day>03</day><month>10</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2025-10-03"><day>03</day><month>10</month><year>2025</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2025, Bionika Media</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2025, ООО «Бионика Медиа»</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Bionika Media</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">ООО «Бионика Медиа»</copyright-holder></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/691923">https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/691923</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The increasing frequency of induced labor in recent years has led to the need for scientific and clinical research into the outcomes of this procedure for both mother and fetus. Labor induction is an active medical intervention intended to stimulate uterine contractions before natural labor begins. Labor may be induced for a variety of indications. However, there are still significant challenges in choosing the best methods, timing of the procedure, and clear indications for induction, especially when dealing with a combination of extragenital pathology and gestational complications, as well as varying degrees of cervical ripening and gestational age.</p> <p>Methods of labor induction include both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches. The most widely used methods involve prostaglandin preparations, antiprogestins, oxytocin, and mechanical techniques. Each method has its own indications, contraindications, and risk profile, which require an individual approach to choosing patient management tactics. The combined use of methods can increase the effectiveness of the procedure, but it may also increase the risk of complications such as uterine hyperstimulation or fetal distress.</p> <p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> The results of recent studies have been contradictory, and there is still no definitive conclusion on the effect of labor induction on maternal and perinatal outcomes compared to a wait-and-see approach. It is necessary to use more personalized induction protocols, systematic risk profiling of pregnant women, standardization of approaches to assess cervical ripening with the help of the Bishop score and ultrasound techniques. Additionally, objective criteria for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of labor induction procedures should be developed.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Увеличение частоты индуцированных родов в последние годы актуализирует научные и клинические исследования, направленные на изучение исходов данной процедуры, как для матери, так и для плода. Индукция родов представляет собой активное медицинское вмешательство, призванное инициировать родовую деятельность до ее естественного начала и может проводиться по различным показаниям. Однако до сих пор сохраняются значительные сложности в выборе оптимальных методов, сроков начала процедуры и четких показаний для индукции, особенно в случае сочетания экстрагенитальной патологии с гестационными осложнениями, при различной степени зрелости шейки матки и сроках беременности.</p> <p>Методы индукции родов включают, как медикаментозные, так и немедикаментозные подходы. Наиболее широко применяются препараты простагландинов, антигестагенов, окситоцин и механические методы. Каждый из методов имеет свои показания, противопоказания и профиль риска, что требует индивидуального подхода к выбору тактики ведения пациентки. Комбинированное использование методов может повысить эффективность процедуры, однако увеличивает риск осложнений, таких, как гиперстимуляция матки или дистресс плода.</p> <p><bold>Заключение:</bold> Результаты последних исследований остаются противоречивыми, и до сих пор не поставлена окончательная точка в вопросе влияния индукции родов на материнские и перинатальные исходы, по сравнению с выжидательной тактикой. Необходим переход к более персонализированным протоколам индукции, систематизация профилей риска женщин, стандартизация подходов к оценке готовности родовых путей с помощью шкалы Бишопа, ультразвуковых методов и создание объективных критериев эффективности и безопасности родовозбуждения.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>labor induction</kwd><kwd>induced labor</kwd><kwd>gestational complications</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>индукция родов</kwd><kwd>родовозбуждение</kwd><kwd>гестационные осложнения</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><funding-statement xml:lang="en">The work is based on the research project “Biomedical matrices of healthy motherhood and antenatal programming of the fetus” (FGWN-2025-0005), with the registration number 1024032800227-5-3.2.2.</funding-statement><funding-statement xml:lang="ru">Работа выполнена на основе фундаментальной научной темы «Медико-биологические матрицы здорового материнства и антенатального программирования плода» (FGWN-2025-0005) № госрегистрации 1024032800227-5-3.2.2.</funding-statement></funding-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>López-Jiménez N., García-Sánchez F., Hernández-Pailos R., Rodrigo-Álvaro V., Pascual-Pedreño A., Moreno-Cid M. et al. Risk of caesarean delivery in labour induction: a systematic review and external validation of predictive models. BJOG. 2022; 129(5): 685-95. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16947</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on induction of labour, at or beyond term. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240052796</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Arage M.W. Labor induction. In: Tsikouras P., Von Tempelhoff G.F., Rath W., Nikos N., eds. New aspects in cesarean sections [Internet]. IntechOpen; 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110478</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Grobman W.A., Rice M.M., Reddy U.M., Tita A.T.N., Silver R.M., Mallett G. et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 379(6): 513-23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Wood R., Freret T.S., Clapp M., Little S. Rates of induction of labor at 39 weeks and cesarean delivery following publication of the ARRIVE trial. JAMA Netw. Open. 2023; 6(8): e2328274. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28274</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Facchinetti F., Menichini D., Perrone E. The ARRIVE trial will not «arrive» to Europe. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2022; 35(22): 4229-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1849128</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Hong J., Atkinson J., Mitchell A.R., Tong S., Walker S.P., Middleton A. et al. Comparison of maternal labor-related complications and neonatal outcomes following elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation vs expectant management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open. 2023; 6(5): e2313162. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.13162</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Berghella V., Bellussi F., Schoen C.N. Evidence-based labor management: induction of labor (part 2). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol MFM. 2020; 2(3): 100136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100136</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Hersh A.R., Urbanowicz E., Garg B., Schmidt E.M., Packer C.H., Caughey A.B. Outcomes among nulliparous women undergoing nonmedically indicated induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management differ by maternal age. Am. J. Perinatol. 2024; 41(S 01): e1061-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1990-8411</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Souter V., Nethery E., Levy B., McLean K., Sitcov K. Elective induction of labor in nulliparas: has the ARRIVE trial changed obstetric practices and outcomes? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 226(1): S83-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.155</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Gilroy L.C., Al-Kouatly H.B., Minkoff H.L., McLaren R.A. Jr. Changes in obstetrical practices and pregnancy outcomes following the ARRIVE trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; 226(5): 716.e1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.02.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Azria E., Haaser T., Schmitz T., Froeliger A., Bouchghoul H., Madar H. et al. The ethics of induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparas in research and clinical practice. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024; 230(3S): S775-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.07.037</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Rydahl E., Eriksen L., Juhl M. Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review. JBI Database System. Rev. Implement. Rep. 2019; 17(2): 170-208. https://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003587</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Dong S., Bapoo S., Shukla M., Abbasi N., Horn D., D'Souza R. Induction of labour in low-risk pregnancies before 40 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022; 79: 107-25. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.12.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Butler S.E., Wallace E.M., Bisits A., Selvaratnam R.J., Davey M.A. Induction of labor and cesarean birth in lower-risk nulliparous women at term: a retrospective cohort study. Birth. 2024; 51(3): 521-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/birt.12806</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Sanchez-Ramos L., Levine L.D., Sciscione A.C., Mozurkewich E.L., Ramsey P.S., Adair C.D. et al. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024; 230(3S): S669-95. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Senat M.V., Schmitz T., Bouchghoul H., Diguisto C., Girault A., Paysant S. et al. Rupture des membranes à terme avant travail. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF — Texte court [Term prelabor rupture of membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for clinical practice - Short text]. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. Senol. 2020; 48(1): 15-8. French. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Chow R., Li A., Wu N., Martin M., Wessels J.M., Foster W.G. Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2021; 304(6): 1417-26. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06228-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Coates D., Makris A., Catling C., Henry A., Scarf V., Watts N. et al. A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour. PLOS One. 2020; 15(1): e0228196. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228196</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Tsakiridis I., Mamopoulos A., Athanasiadis A., Dagklis T. Induction of labor: an overview of guidelines. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2020; 75(1): 61-72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000752</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Middleton P., Shepherd E., Morris J., Crowther C.A., Gomersall J.C. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020; 7(7): CD004945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Министерство здравоохранения Российской Федерации. Клинические рекомендации. Подготовка шейки матки к родам и родовозбуждение. М.; 2024. 52 с. [Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Clinical guidelines. Preparing the cervix for childbirth and induction of labor. Moscow; 2024. 52 p. (in Russian)].</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Ovadia C., Seed P.T., Sklavounos A., Geenes V., Di Ilio C., Chambers J. et al. Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses. Lancet. 2019; 393(10174): 899-909. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31877-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Jurk S.M., Kremer A.E., Schleussner E. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021; 81(8): 940-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1522-5178</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries: ACOG Committee Opinion, number 831. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 138(1): e35-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004447</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Nielsen J.H., Lykke J.A. Differentiated timing of induction for women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy – a historical cohort study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2021; 100(2): 279-85. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13998</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Yin Z., Li T., Zhou L., Fei J., Su J., Li D. Optimal delivery time for patients with diet-controlled gestational diabetes mellitus: a single-center real-world study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1): 356. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04683-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>Kivisilta K., Toivonen E., Kiverä A., Kortelainen E., Uotila J., Laivuori H. Delayed versus early delivery leads to similar outcome in selected cases of preeclampsia in the Finnish Genetics of Pre-eclampsia Consortium (FINNPEC) cohort. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2024; 36: 101129. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2024.101129</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><label>29.</label><mixed-citation>Krogh L.Q., Glavind J., Henriksen T.B., Thornton J., Fuglsang J., Boie S. Full-term induction of labor vs expectant management and cesarean delivery in women with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM. 2023; 5(5): 100909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100909</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><label>30.</label><mixed-citation>Wormer K.C., Bauer A., Williford A.E. Bishop score. 2024 Jul 17. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><label>31.</label><mixed-citation>Milatović S., Krsman A., Baturan B., Dragutinović Đ., Ilić Đ., Stajić D. Comparing pre-induction ultrasound parameters and the Bishop score to determine whether labor induction is successful. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(7): 1127. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina60071127</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><label>32.</label><mixed-citation>Krsman A., Grujić Z., Čapko D., Dragutinović D., Baturan B., Nikolić A. et al. Ultrasound assessment of cervical status compared to Bishop score-predicting the success of labur induction using a machine learning based model. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023; 27(13): 6332-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32993</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><label>33.</label><mixed-citation>Abdelhafeez M.A., Elguindy A.E., Hamed M.A., Nawara M. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of the cervix for prediction of successful induction of labor in nulliparous women. Open J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 10(7): 892-901. https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2020.1070084</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><label>34.</label><mixed-citation>Kamel R., Garcia F.S., Poon L.C., Youssef A. The usefulness of ultrasound before induction of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM. 2021; 3(6S): 100423. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100423</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><label>35.</label><mixed-citation>Lu J., Cheng Y.K.Y., Ho S.Y.S., Sahota D.S., Hui L.L., Poon L.C. et al. The predictive value of cervical shear wave elastography in the outcome of labor induction. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020; 99(1): 59-68. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13706</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><label>36.</label><mixed-citation>Thomsen C.R., Jensen M.S.S., Leonhard A.K., Mortensen T.Ø., Bor P., Sandager P. et al. A force-measuring device combined with ultrasound-based elastography for assessment of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2022; 101(2): 241-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14309</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><label>37.</label><mixed-citation>Torres J., Muñoz M., Porcel M.D.C., Contreras S., Molina F.S., Rus G. et al. Preliminary results on the preinduction cervix status by shear wave elastography. Mathematics. 2022; 10(17): 3164. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math10173164</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B38"><label>38.</label><mixed-citation>Zhou Y., Jin N., Chen Q., Lv M., Jiang Y., Chen Y. et al. Predictive value of cervical length by ultrasound and cervical strain elastography in labor induction at term. J. Int. Med. Res. 2021; 49(2): 300060520985338. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300060520985338</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B39"><label>39.</label><mixed-citation>Kruit H., Heikinheimo O., Sorsa T., Juhila J., Paavonen J., Rahkonen L. Cervical biomarkers as predictors of successful induction of labour by Foley catheter. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018; 38(7): 927-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1434763</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B40"><label>40.</label><mixed-citation>Rathore A., Sharma R., Kar R., Tandon A., Suneja A., Guleria K. Role of cervical phosphorylated insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 (phIGFBP1) for prediction of successful induction among primigravida with prolonged pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India. 2021; 71(1): 38-44. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01372-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B41"><label>41.</label><mixed-citation>Lau S.L., Kwan A., Tse W.T., Poon L.C. The use of ultrasound, fibronectin and other parameters to predict the success of labour induction. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022; 79: 27-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.10.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B42"><label>42.</label><mixed-citation>Levine L.D., Downes K.L., Romero J.A., Pappas H., Elovitz M.A. Quantitative fetal fibronectin and cervical length in symptomatic women: results from a prospective blinded cohort study. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med. 2019; 32(22): 3792-800. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1472227</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B43"><label>43.</label><mixed-citation>Bhatti G., Romero R., Gomez-Lopez N., Chaiworapongsa T., Than N.G., Theis K.R. et al. The amniotic fluid proteome changes with term labor and informs biomarker discovery in maternal plasma. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 3136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28157-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B44"><label>44.</label><mixed-citation>Pinheiro E.A., Stika C.S. Drugs in pregnancy: pharmacologic and physiologic changes that affect clinical care. Semin. Perinatol. 2020; 44(3): 151221. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151221</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B45"><label>45.</label><mixed-citation>Sheibani L., Wing D.A. A safety review of medications used for labour induction. Expert Opin. Drug. Saf. 2018; 17(2): 161-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2018.1404573</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B46"><label>46.</label><mixed-citation>Levine L.D., Downes K.L., Parry S., Elovitz M.A., Sammel M.D., Srinivas S.K. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 218(2): 254.e1-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B47"><label>47.</label><mixed-citation>Rossi R.M., Requarth E., Warshak C.R., Dufendach K.R., Hall E.S., DeFranco E.A. Risk calculator to predict cesarean delivery among women undergoing induction of labor. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 135(3): 559-68. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003696</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B48"><label>48.</label><mixed-citation>Carlson N., Ellis J., Page K., Dunn Amore A., Phillippi J. Review of evidence-based methods for successful labor induction. J. Midwifery Womens Health. 2021; 66(4): 459-69. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13238</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B49"><label>49.</label><mixed-citation>Баев О.Р., Карапетян А.О., Бабич Д.А., Сухих Г.Т. Сравнение эффективности и безопасности мифепристона для преиндукции родов при амбулаторном и стационарном применении: протокол рандомизированного контролируемого испытания. Акушерство и гинекология. 2021; 9: 66-71. [Baev O.R., Karapetyan A.O., Babich D.A., Sukhikh G.T. Comparison of outpatient with inpatient mifepristone usage for cervical ripening: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021; (9): 66-71 (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.9.66-71</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B50"><label>50.</label><mixed-citation>de Vaan M.D., Ten Eikelder M.L., Jozwiak M., Palmer K.R., Davies-Tuck M., Bloemenkamp K.W. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019; 10(10): CD001233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B51"><label>51.</label><mixed-citation>Dasgupta S., Dasgupta J., Goswami B., Mondal J. Randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy of a combination regime containing two cervical sensitizers (mifepristone + Foley's catheter) versus single agent mifepristone or Foley's catheter for labor induction in women attempting TOLAC at late third trimester with a dead fetus in utero. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2023; 49(11): 2671-79. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.15772</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B52"><label>52.</label><mixed-citation>Blanc-Petitjean P., Carbonne B., Deneux-Tharaux C., Salomé M., Goffinet F., Le Ray C. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening methods for induction of labour: a population-based study using coarsened exact matching. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 2019; 33(5): 313-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12569</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B53"><label>53.</label><mixed-citation>Penfield C.A., Wing D.A. Labor induction techniques: which is the best? Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North. Am. 2017; 44(4): 567-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2017.08.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B54"><label>54.</label><mixed-citation>AWMF online. Geburtseinleitung. Leitlinienprogramm der DGGG, OEGGG und SGGG. Available at: https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/015-088ladd_S2k_Geburtseinleitung_2021-04.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B55"><label>55.</label><mixed-citation>NICE. Inducing labour. NICE guideline, NG 207. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B56"><label>56.</label><mixed-citation>ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 114(2 Pt 1): 386-97. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5 REAFFIRMED Obstet. Gynecol. 2021; 137(1): 184-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004203</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B57"><label>57.</label><mixed-citation>Chiossi G., D'Amico R., Tramontano A.L., Sampogna V., Laghi V., Facchinetti F. Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2021; 16(7): e0253957. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253957</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B58"><label>58.</label><mixed-citation>Bengtsson F., Ekéus C., Hagelroth A., Ahlsson F. Neonatal outcomes of elective labor induction in low-risk term pregnancies. Sci. Rep. 2023; 13(1): 15830. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42413-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B59"><label>59.</label><mixed-citation>Alfirevic Z., Keeney E., Dowswell T., Welton N.J., Medley N., Dias S. et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG. 2016; 123(9): 1462-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13981</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B60"><label>60.</label><mixed-citation>Баев О.Р., Шмаков Р.Г., Бабич Д.А. Преиндукция и индукция родов. Краткий алгоритм по клиническим рекомендациям «Неудачная попытка стимуляции родов. Подготовка шейки матки к родам и родовозбуждение». Акушерство и гинекология. 2022; 12 (Приложение): 28-39. [Baev O.R., Shmakov R.G., Babich D.A. Preinduction and induction of labor. A concise algorithm on clinical guidelines «Unsuccessful attempted induction of labor. Preparation of the cervix for labor and labor induction». Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; 12 (Suppl.): 28-39 (in Russian)].</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
