Talk:Labor induction

Removed content

I removed the following passage:

"[Induction] enables doctors to practice daylight obstetrics," says Dr. Marsden Wagner, a neonatologist who served for 15 years as a director of women's and children's health in industrialized countries for the World Health Organization. "It means that as a doctor, I can come in at 9 a.m., give you the pill, and by 6 p.m. I've delivered a baby and am home having dinner."

I belive this passage constitues "weasel words." The opinion of one neonatologist, no matter how esteemed, has no place in this sort of encyclopedia article. This was probably inserted by a "natural childbirth" proponent from an article called "Forced Labor" and does not represent a neutral point of view. Ryanbibler (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back. It appears under the 'criticisms' section. It does however require a citation. If it isn't cited in a week or so then I reckon we remove it. Gillyweed (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This quote is still false, unnecessary, and biased. Ryanbibler (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is adequately cited and appears under the criticism section. What is your problem with it, other than it is not your opinion? Gillyweed (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence base

Although the article states that late delivery poses risks, it offers no discussion of whether induced labor reduces these risks. Such assumptions are dangerous in medicine. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Induction

However, studies into this matter indicate that induction has no effect on the rates of caesarean section[10]. Two more recent studies have shown that induction may increase the risk of caesarean section if performed before the 40th week of gestation, but it has no effect or actually lowers the risk if performed after the 40th week.

It seems that this passage does not mention existing research indicating induction increases caesarean section and discredits such information by solely citing research that suggests the opposite. Also, the language suggests biased opinion. I have found research from the Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing that found induction increased chance of c-section 2 to 3 times. I will add it to the section called Criticisms of Induction. PoconutPirate (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also getting rid of the single bullet point that is in this section. It only serves to confuse the reader and make organization of information difficult. PoconutPirate (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove unsourced material?

I've been checking the second paragraph of Criticisms of induction and noticed that some claim to have citations (which are sourced by parenthetical statements that point to external links) but upon checking the sources cited, all of the ones that have parenthetical citations are unreliable. The one on Catecholamines does not link to a page with actual information from what I could tell and the two that link to the Women's Healthcare Topics are in violation of their terms of use. Specifically: "HYPERLINKING TO SITE, "FRAMING" AND REFERENCING SITE PROHIBITED You may not unless under written contract or permission hyperlink to this site or portions of this site for any reason. You may not reference the web address in commercial or non-commercial media without permission nor can you frame the site. You agree to remove and de-activate the site if requested and agree to liability for any damages incurred by improper use of this site."

So I'm going to immediately remove the claims based upon Women's Healthcare Topics (because they've had over a month to cite them with legitimate sources and having the hyperlink and derived content is a possible liability). I'm going to leave the others up for a little bit longer to just be safe, but if anyone can supply citations or believes they've had long enough to be cited already, feel free to prudently remove unsourced claims. Chris (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing {{tl:Unreliable sources}}

I'm going to remove the unrelieable sources template because it seems that after my removal of poor sources and unsourced statements there are only reliable sources now. If anyone feels differently, feel free to revert and we can discuss. Cbrick77 (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Increased neonatal mortality among normal-weight births beyond 41 weeks of gestation in California misrepresented

The Paper reports an increase in infant mortality from a collective group starting at 41w 0d to 42w 6d and therefore cannot be used in an argument to show the increase in infant mortality specifically in the 41w 0d to 41w 6d time period. The article, however, cites other sources who have the correct data. Another source should be used in its place. 00:01, 7 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.211.75 (talk)

Added new content

I added the latest studies that tend to show induction reduces fetal death and does not increase c-section rate. Also deleted some content on UK induction practices that was not supported by any evidence. Randomenamegenerated (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Randomenamegenerated. You changed a lot of content. It is obvious that you are an experienced Wikipedia contributor, so you must know that people review changes that you make. I do not mean to disrupt your editing style, and am grateful for what you contributed, so I will respectfully say that if you can manage it in the future I and perhaps others here appreciate more edits with fewer changes rather than one big edit changing a lot. When you move, add, remove, and change content all at once it is time consuming for me to see what you did, and more easy for me to look at changes piecewise. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure I understand. Do you mean making the edits in several phases instead of all at once? The fundamental issue is that in the past year there has been a lot of new research in this area, and the article needed a lot of updates.

Randomenamegenerated (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Randomenamegenerated Yes, making the edits in several phases is what I mean. Look at what I am seeing. I hope that if you look at this that you can see that determining what is newly written and what is old and moved is not easy to do. Had you edited in phases, then it would be much easier for me to check every change. I, and many other people on Wikipedia, do not check the entire article every time anyone changes it, but rather we check each individual change as it happens.

I have no comment on the substance of your additions, but rather on the way that you added this content. It is a lot for me to decipher when new and old content is mixed together for me to check. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding Neonatal and Maternal Risks?

I would like to insert a heading to organize risks into two categories: maternal and neonatal risks. I think it is most appropriate under the "criticisms" heading or would be most organized if a new heading is added "Risks of Induction" and further divided into Maternal and Neonatal Risks. I would like to include the Apgar scores (evaluations for newborns), whether inducing labor results in longer ICU and NICU stays, maternal hemorrhage and other concepts as such. There is also talk about physicians benefitting from inducing labor for nonmedical indications and possible proposals to reduce the number of inductions prior to 39 weeks. Any thoughts? I would like to work on this article because it is currently shorter than what I think it deserves since this is an important medical practice. If there is anything else that might need expansion in this article, i would like to try to make some beneficial edits. Kim ENGW3307 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor induction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422152535/http://publications.nice.org.uk/induction-of-labour-cg70/introduction to http://publications.nice.org.uk/induction-of-labour-cg70/introduction
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527024404/http://www.nice.org.uk/guidelineD to http://www.nice.org.uk/guidelineD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender Neutral Language

I wanted to include gender neutral language such as "birthing parent" or "birthing individual" - has there been previous discussion on this within pages related to pregnancy? FPMdoc (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)