# Induction of labour

Intervention · id `maternal:induction-of-labour` · Maternal & Newborn Atlas · release `fc5a600ec7387e71` (public)

> General information from published sources, not medical advice, and not reviewed by clinicians. Check the cited source before relying on anything here.

The atlas's own text and curation may be reused under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/): credit the atlas, and do not use it commercially. See the atlas About page. Text quoted from a source stays under that source's own terms, given as the source's reuse\_basis. The atlas's reuse terms do not cover it. The downloads list each quotation with its source in third\_party\_quotations.

Browse, life stage: Pregnancy; Childbirth  
Browse, care area: Labour and birth  

## In plain language

Induction means starting labour with medicines or other methods instead of waiting for it to begin on its own. It is usually done when the due date has passed or when a problem with the pregnancy puts the mother or baby at risk. Two large trials asked a different question: is it better to induce healthy women at a set time than to wait? ARRIVE looked at first-time mothers at 39 weeks. SWEPIS compared induction at 41 weeks with waiting until 42 weeks. They measured different things and found different results, so read each on its own page.

## Technical summary

A procedure with several methods: medicines (oxytocin, dinoprostone) and mechanical ripening of the cervix (a balloon device). Each method has its own record; this record is about the strategy of inducing labour at a chosen time. Sources: MedlinePlus Childbirth, NIH Labor and Delivery (cite only), ARRIVE (Grobman et al., NEJM 2018: abstract and registry record) and SWEPIS (Wennerholm et al., BMJ 2019: abstract and PMC full text, with its erratum). Neither trial compares methods of induction. The oxytocin record keeps induction apart from the use of oxytocin after birth to prevent bleeding.

## Claims, with the population each applies to

## Context: Low-risk first-time mothers randomised at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days: caesarean delivery (ARRIVE)

Recipient: Maternal; Population: Low-risk nulliparous women (no previous pregnancy beyond 20 weeks per the registry) with a singleton pregnancy who were randomly assigned at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation either to labour induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The gestational bounds are the gestational age at randomisation.; Care setting: Multicentre trial in the United States; the abstract does not say what kind of site took part.; Geography: United States; Life stage: Pregnancy from 38 weeks 0 days, to delivery; Gestational age: 38 weeks 0 days (266 days) to 38 weeks 6 days (272 days), measured at enrolment; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: To delivery (caesarean delivery was the principal secondary outcome).

### In ARRIVE, caesarean delivery was the principal secondary outcome. It occurred in 18.6% of women in the induction group and 22.2% with expectant management (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.93), a significantly lower frequency with induction. The women were low-risk first-time mothers randomly assigned at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation to induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management.

- Category: Effect
- Evidence stage: Interventional
- Certainty: Certainty not assessed
- Applies to: Recipient: Maternal; Population: Low-risk nulliparous women (no previous pregnancy beyond 20 weeks per the registry) with a singleton pregnancy who were randomly assigned at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation either to labour induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The gestational bounds are the gestational age at randomisation.; Care setting: Multicentre trial in the United States; the abstract does not say what kind of site took part.; Geography: United States; Life stage: Pregnancy from 38 weeks 0 days, to delivery; Gestational age: 38 weeks 0 days (266 days) to 38 weeks 6 days (272 days), measured at enrolment; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: To delivery (caesarean delivery was the principal secondary outcome).
- Limitations: This is a secondary outcome. The abstract and registry were read, not the full text, so adjustment, missing data and other methods are not described here. The abstract gives no number of women in each group for this outcome, so none is computed. The result concerns low-risk first-time mothers and does not apply to other women. The primary composite outcome measured in babies is a separate claim in a separate context, and it did not differ significantly between the groups.
- Last checked: 2026-10-14
- Sources:
  1. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, METHODS: population, timing and principal secondary outcome. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  2. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, RESULTS: cesarean delivery. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  3. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, CONCLUSIONS, sentence 1: lower cesarean frequency. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.

## Context: Fetuses and babies of low-risk first-time mothers randomised at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days: perinatal death or severe neonatal complications (ARRIVE)

Recipient: Mixed recipients; Population: Fetuses and newborns of low-risk nulliparous women who were randomly assigned at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation either to labour induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The composite counts fetal and newborn outcomes together: the registry says perinatal death includes antepartum stillbirth, intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal death. The gestational bounds are the mother's gestational age at randomisation. Use this context only for the composite perinatal outcome.; Care setting: Multicentre trial in the United States; the abstract does not say what kind of site took part.; Geography: United States; Life stage: Antepartum pregnancy, birth and the newborn period to hospital discharge; Gestational age: 38 weeks 0 days (266 days) to 38 weeks 6 days (272 days), measured at enrolment; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: Per the registry, the composite runs from delivery through 72 hours after birth, except perinatal death, which runs from the antepartum pregnancy period through hospital discharge.

### ARRIVE randomly assigned low-risk first-time mothers at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation either to labour induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The primary outcome, a composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications, occurred in 4.3% of neonates in the induction group and 5.4% in the expectant-management group (relative risk 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.00). The authors report that induction did not result in a significantly lower frequency of the composite adverse perinatal outcome.

- Category: Effect
- Evidence stage: Interventional
- Certainty: Certainty not assessed
- Applies to: Recipient: Mixed recipients; Population: Fetuses and newborns of low-risk nulliparous women who were randomly assigned at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation either to labour induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The composite counts fetal and newborn outcomes together: the registry says perinatal death includes antepartum stillbirth, intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal death. The gestational bounds are the mother's gestational age at randomisation. Use this context only for the composite perinatal outcome.; Care setting: Multicentre trial in the United States; the abstract does not say what kind of site took part.; Geography: United States; Life stage: Antepartum pregnancy, birth and the newborn period to hospital discharge; Gestational age: 38 weeks 0 days (266 days) to 38 weeks 6 days (272 days), measured at enrolment; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: Per the registry, the composite runs from delivery through 72 hours after birth, except perinatal death, which runs from the antepartum pregnancy period through hospital discharge.
- Limitations: The abstract and the registry record were read; the full text was not, because the PMC copy is not in the Open Access subset, so the analysis methods are not described here. The registry lists the composite's components: perinatal death, respiratory support within 72 hours after birth, an Apgar score of 3 or less at 5 minutes, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, meconium aspiration, birth trauma, intracranial or subgaleal haemorrhage, and hypotension needing vasopressor support. The registry lists masking as none. The percentages are as printed in the abstract, and the abstract does not give the number of neonates in each group, so none is computed. The result applies to low-risk first-time mothers offered induction at 39 weeks; it does not apply to induction for a medical reason or at other times. The registry shows the expectant-management arm continued until at least 40 weeks 5 days unless a medical indication arose.
- Last checked: 2026-10-14
- Sources:
  1. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, METHODS: design, population, timing and primary outcome. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract; the full text was not retrieved.
  2. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, RESULTS: primary outcome. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  3. Supports: Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. The full text and the version of record were not fetched.) <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566>
     Locator: Abstract, CONCLUSIONS, sentence 1: no significantly lower composite. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:27Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: c79b91cfa406107c6a1429fe91e12fcf822498e6f6a48e8b77f0b06f4d8bb4ae.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  4. Background: A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (Registry, edition ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 JSON record, fetched on 2026-10-14; last update posted 2019-02-21. The record has posted results, which were not read.) <https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01990612>
     Locator: protocolSection.designModule.maskingInfo and outcomesModule.primaryOutcomes\[0\]. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:18:23Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: aad404d33fbefc6f8993abc098f036ef780d261dca87ef3e3e63bea4505ffe94.
     How it applies: Registry JSON: masking value and the primary outcome measure and time frame.

## Context: Fetuses and newborns of low-risk women randomised from 40+6 to 41+1 weeks: perinatal composite and perinatal death (SWEPIS)

Recipient: Mixed recipients; Population: Fetuses and the babies born of them, fetal and newborn together, because the trial counted stillbirth and neonatal outcomes in one composite and counted perinatal deaths (stillbirths and early neonatal deaths) together. The mother's gestational age at randomisation was 40+6 to 41+1 weeks (the paper spells the window out in weeks and days joined by a plus sign; no age bound is recorded in structured form because that spelling cannot be bound to a quote). Use this context only for the composite outcome and perinatal deaths.; Care setting: Fourteen hospitals in Sweden: five university clinics and nine county hospitals.; Geography: Sweden; Life stage: Late term and the perinatal period; Gestational age: Not reported; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: Randomisation to the perinatal period; the abstract does not give the follow-up time.

### SWEPIS randomly assigned women with an uncomplicated, low-risk pregnancy of one baby, one to one, to induction of labour at 41 weeks or to expectant management with induction at 42 weeks. The composite perinatal outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death and a list of serious newborn problems) was found in 33 of 1381 pregnancies (2.4%) after induction and 31 of 1379 (2.2%) with expectant management. The relative risk was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.73; P=0.90), so the difference was not significant. After induction there were no perinatal deaths. With expectant management there were six, made up of five stillbirths and one death in the early neonatal period (P=0.03). The study was stopped early because deaths around birth were more frequent in the expectant management group (the monitoring board advised stopping on 2 October 2018; recruitment ended on 13 October 2018). The authors call the lower mortality a secondary outcome and ask for cautious interpretation.

- Category: Effect
- Evidence stage: Interventional
- Certainty: Certainty not assessed
- Applies to: Recipient: Mixed recipients; Population: Fetuses and the babies born of them, fetal and newborn together, because the trial counted stillbirth and neonatal outcomes in one composite and counted perinatal deaths (stillbirths and early neonatal deaths) together. The mother's gestational age at randomisation was 40+6 to 41+1 weeks (the paper spells the window out in weeks and days joined by a plus sign; no age bound is recorded in structured form because that spelling cannot be bound to a quote). Use this context only for the composite outcome and perinatal deaths.; Care setting: Fourteen hospitals in Sweden: five university clinics and nine county hospitals.; Geography: Sweden; Life stage: Late term and the perinatal period; Gestational age: Not reported; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: Randomisation to the perinatal period; the abstract does not give the follow-up time.
- Limitations: Open-label, stopped early (the independent monitoring board advised stopping on 2 October 2018), so the mortality difference rests on a small number of deaths and an early stop; the authors say the results should be interpreted cautiously. Perinatal mortality was a secondary outcome. The expectant management group could still be induced at 42 weeks, so this compares timing, not induction against no induction. Only low-risk women were included. A published erratum corrects the neonatal intensive care admission figures in table 3; those figures are not used here, and the erratum does not change the numbers above. PubMed and the PMC full text were read. The ISRCTN registry record was not fetched.
- Last checked: 2026-10-14
- Source problem: a cited source is corrected. Check the sources before relying on this claim.
- Sources:
  1. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS: design and groups. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  2. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: composite. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  3. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, RESULTS, sentences 1 to 3: early stop, composite and perinatal deaths. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  4. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, CONCLUSIONS, sentences 2 and 3: secondary outcome and caution. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  5. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PMC Open Access subset full-text XML of the SWEPIS paper (PMID 31748223), from NCBI E-utilities, fetched 2026-10-14. The version of record was not fetched. The paper has a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; this snapshot is marked corrected for that reason.) <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6939660/>
     Locator: Results, para 1, sentence 1: the monitoring board's recommendation to stop. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:11Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: a28804ac2098f66cc7ea3688f46df1aa8d895cc976e7467c4c06010c7eb7b252.
     How it applies: PMC full text, CC BY-NC.
  6. Background: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PMC full-text XML of the BMJ erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689) for the SWEPIS paper, from NCBI E-utilities.) <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8684047/>
     Locator: Erratum text: neonatal intensive care admission row of table 3. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:26:01Z. Source state: Current. Snapshot hash: 1171935330fdb0c9371d083757728222cf9935849d80543cba60def0094c3879.
     How it applies: PMC erratum text, CC BY-NC; cited so that a reader knows the figure was corrected.

## Context: Low-risk women with a singleton pregnancy randomised from 40+6 to 41+1 weeks: maternal outcomes (SWEPIS)

Recipient: Maternal; Population: Women with an uncomplicated, low-risk pregnancy of one baby, head down. They were assigned at random, one to one, through the Swedish Pregnancy Register, either to induction of labour at 41 weeks or to expectant management with induction at 42 weeks. Their gestational age at randomisation was 40+6 to 41+1 weeks (no structured age bound is recorded, as for the babies' context).; Care setting: Fourteen hospitals in Sweden: five university clinics and nine county hospitals.; Geography: Sweden; Life stage: Late term, from randomisation to delivery; Gestational age: Not reported; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: To delivery and maternal discharge; the abstract does not give the follow-up time.

### In SWEPIS, the groups did not differ in how often women had a caesarean birth, an instrumental vaginal birth or any major maternal morbidity. One group was induced at 41 weeks and the other was managed expectantly and induced at 42 weeks. The study compared the two timings in 2760 women with an uncomplicated, low-risk pregnancy of one baby, and was stopped early.

- Category: Effect
- Evidence stage: Interventional
- Certainty: Certainty not assessed
- Applies to: Recipient: Maternal; Population: Women with an uncomplicated, low-risk pregnancy of one baby, head down. They were assigned at random, one to one, through the Swedish Pregnancy Register, either to induction of labour at 41 weeks or to expectant management with induction at 42 weeks. Their gestational age at randomisation was 40+6 to 41+1 weeks (no structured age bound is recorded, as for the babies' context).; Care setting: Fourteen hospitals in Sweden: five university clinics and nine county hospitals.; Geography: Sweden; Life stage: Late term, from randomisation to delivery; Gestational age: Not reported; Postnatal age: Not reported; Follow-up: To delivery and maternal discharge; the abstract does not give the follow-up time.
- Limitations: The abstract gives no figures for these maternal outcomes, so none are stated. The study was open label and stopped early. The women were low-risk and the expectant group could be induced at 42 weeks. The perinatal results are a separate claim in a separate context. The SWEPIS paper has a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072) that corrects only the neonatal intensive care admission row of table 3; it does not touch these maternal outcomes.
- Last checked: 2026-10-14
- Source problem: a cited source is corrected. Check the sources before relying on this claim.
- Sources:
  1. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, PARTICIPANTS and INTERVENTIONS. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.
  2. Supports: Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial (Publication, edition PubMed record (abstract and bibliographic data) from NCBI E-utilities. PubMed links a published erratum (BMJ 2021;375:n3072, PMID 34911689), recorded as source maternal:pmc-pmc8684047; it corrects a neonatal intensive care admission row in table 3, which this atlas does not use.) <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6131>
     Locator: Abstract, RESULTS, sentence 4: maternal outcomes. Retrieved 2026-10-14T18:19:10Z. Source state: Corrected. Snapshot hash: bbeb7e6085a7f3cc6b2b3183bbd9988c9af403699da782a5d11c8435c58bc6a6.
     How it applies: PubMed abstract.

## Connected pages

- One way labour starts: Labour and birth (`maternal:labour-and-birth`)
- Filed under this front: Procedures and birth care (`maternal:front-procedures-and-birth-care`)
- Related to: Dinoprostone (`maternal:dinoprostone`)
- Related to: Oxytocin (`maternal:oxytocin`)
- Related to: Cervidil (dinoprostone vaginal insert) (`maternal:cervidil`)
- Related to: Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon (`maternal:cook-cervical-ripening-balloon`)
- Investigated in: ARRIVE trial (induction at 39 weeks in low-risk first births) (`maternal:arrive-trial`)
- Investigated in: DIGITAT trial (induction or monitoring for growth restriction at term) (`maternal:digitat-trial`)
- Investigated in: SWEPIS trial (induction at 41 weeks) (`maternal:swepis-trial`)

## Provenance

Content hash: f9b0701917802e7f383ef236bae5ffe6770c3f0dacda2e4afb6a8c4d23cc9eed
Last substantive edit: 2026-10-14
Evidence last checked: 2026-10-14