About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
ISSN 0300-9092 (Print)
ISSN 2412-5679 (Online)
About
The Journal "Obstetrics and Gynecology"Journal HistoryAims and ScopePolicies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed ConsentEditorial ProcessData sharing statementAdvertising PolicyThe Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of ConcernEditorial BoardEditorial CounsilInformation for ProfessionalsNewsContacts
ArchiveEthical StandardsSubscription
For authors
InstructionsInformed consent policyContract offerEASE GuidelinesICJME CriteriaWAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications
Reviewing
Procedure for reviewingReviewers 2023-2024
Logout
Obstetrics and Gynegology2025№9
A modern perspective on the...

A modern perspective on the issue of labor induction: time of delivery in various obstetric and extragenital pathologies

DOI
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2025.190

Mamedova M.A., Kapustin R.V., Bespalova O.N.

D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, St. Petersburg, Russia

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.  
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.
Conclusion: 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.

Authors’ contributions: Kapustin R.V. – developing the concept of the study; Mamedova M.A. – collecting and processing the material, writing the text; Kapustin R.V., Bespalova O.N. – editing the article.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Funding:  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.
Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of the D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, protocol No. 141 dated March 04, 2025.
For citation: Mamedova M.A., Kapustin R.V., Bespalova O.N. A modern perspective on 
the issue of labor induction: time of delivery in various obstetric and extragenital pathologies.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2025; (9): 5-15 (in Russian)
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2025.190

Keywords

labor induction
induced labor
gestational complications
Full text (in Russian)

References

  1. 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
  2. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on induction of labour, at or beyond term. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240052796
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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)].
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Wormer K.C., Bauer A., Williford A.E. Bishop score. 2024 Jul 17. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. AWMF online. Geburtseinleitung. Leitlinienprogramm der DGGG, OEGGG und SGGG. Available at: https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/015-088ladd_S2k_Geburtseinleitung_2021-04.pdf
  55. NICE. Inducing labour. NICE guideline, NG 207. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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)].

Received 11.07.2025

Accepted 20.08.2025

About the Authors

Mekhri A. Mamedova, PhD, obstetrician-gynecologist at the Maternity Department, D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology, 199034, Russia, St. Petersburg, Mendeleevskaya line, 3, +7(921)388-02-25, mmekhri@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1705-9554
Roman V. Kapustin, Dr. Med. Sci., Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, Maternity Department, D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology, 199034, Russia, St. Petersburg, Mendeleevskaya line, 3, +7(812)328-98-47, kapustin.roman@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2783-3032
Olesya N. Bespalova, Dr. Med. Sci., Deputy Director for Research, D.O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology, 199034, Russia, St. Petersburg, Mendeleevskaya line, 3, +7(812)328-98-68, shiggerra@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-5953
Corresponding author: Mekhri A. Mamedova, mmekhri@gmail.com

Similar Articles

№8 / 2020
Lineva O.I., Davydkin I.L., Danilova O.E., Kurtov I.V., Shatunova  E.P., Tarasova A.V.
Low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of gestational complications in women with different clinical types of thrombophilia
№6 / 2025
Baev O.R., Tskhay V.B., Babich D.A., Bezhenar V.F., Semenov Yu.A., Serova O.F., Gabelova K.A., Zainulina M.S., Tsakhilova S.G., Omarova N.G., Sheldagayeva A.V., Mentsik M.M., Semenova Yu.E., Bryukhanova A.A., Tkacheva N.V., Peshkova N.V., Vasilkovskaya E.N., Skornyakova L.M., Muravina E.L., Samoylova Yu.A., Rasskazova T.V., Fatkullina I.B., Frolov A.L., Dalaeva T.Kh., Emasheva N.M., Guskova O.I., Klishina V.V., Kipriyanova I.I., Klimkina K.I., Afanasieva K.Yu., Gracheva M.S., Osmanov N.Sh., Magomedova L.I., Arslanbekova A.A., Pavlova T.Yu., Danilova S.N., Donskaya D.D.
Use of dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction in routine obstetrical clinical practice: a multicenter study based on real-world evidence
№2 / 2020
Baev O.R., Babich D.A.
Comparison of the efficiency of labor induction in full term and late term pregnancies
№9 / 2017
Dikke G.B.
Comparative assessment of current cervical preparation methods for surgical abortion and labor induction
№7 / 2019
Babich D.A., Baev O.R., Fedotkina E.P., Gus A.I.
Diagnostic opportunities of echo elastography in obstetrics and gynecology
By continuing to use our site, you consent to the processing of cookies that ensure the proper functioning of the site.