You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
CRITIQUE OF THE JOURNAL ARTICLE “COMPARISON OF ELECTIVE INDUCTION OF LABOR WITH FAVORABLE BISHOP SCORES” Critique of the Journal Article “Comparison of Elective Induction of Labor with Favorable Bishop Scores” The study was conducted with the objective of finding out if inducing labor among pregnant women with Bishop scores 4 and above could increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery as compared to expectant management or awaiting for spontaneous labor (Nielsen, et al., 2005)…
Apart from reported lower birth rates in the test group, no other significant differences were found between the two groups, and it was concluded that there are no significant differences in the likelihood of having a cesarean delivery between the women that had induced labor and those which awaited spontaneous labor, which is contradictory to previous studies that reported a 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of a cesarean delivery among women with induced labor (Nielsen, et al., 2005). A flowchart showing how the researchers possibly designed the study is shown in figure 1. The results of the study and the evidences were consistent with the conclusion that having induced labor does not increase the likelihood of having a cesarean delivery as compared to awaiting spontaneous labor. The results were processed using statistical analyses, and even if the rates of cesarean delivery for the test group was 8/116 and the control group 8/110 seem variable the differences were statistically non-significant according to tests (Nielsen, et al., 2005). The cesarean delivery rate for nulliparous patients in the test group (6/45) was also non-significantly different from the control (6/58). ...
Not exactly what you need?