Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The collection of discussions demonstrates strong support and interest in the ARRIVE trial’s findings, with users referencing the reduction in cesarean rates and discussing how this evidence could shift current obstetric practices. The tone is analytical and optimistic about the potential for improved maternal outcomes, showcasing deep involvement and perceived clinical impact.
Most discussions support the findings of the trial, highlighting reduced cesarean rates and supporting the safety of early induction.
Posts show high curiosity about the implications, referencing large studies and specific data like the ARRIVE trial.
Many posts involve detailed analysis, referencing randomized controlled trials, and debating clinical implications, indicating deep engagement.
The discussions suggest the study influences clinical practice and policy debates, emphasizing evidence-based decision making in obstetrics.
産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM)」 https://t.co/e3TqRUBlSs #陣痛促進剤 #出産
5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does marginally decrease cesarean rates (at academic medical centers) https://t.co/aGLOLqi5mZ
Her husband, Bill Grobman, is former @MySMFM president & among many the lead author of the paper reporting findings from the landmark ARRIVE trial. Can only imagine the dinner time convos & I wonder how much research is born outta this (I imagine) synergy. https://t.co/fSARDypTP8
La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparación a un manejo expectante? Según este artículo en @NEJM no supone un mejor resultado perinatal, pero sí menos cesáreas
Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly lower frequency of a composite adverse perinatal outcome, but it did result in a significantly lower frequency of CS’ #oaa3dc2019 https://t.co/sZrr8ak4CW
Great, let’s draw on an observational study that excluded women who had stillbirths. If only there was an RCT comparing 39w iol with expectant management to inform decisions... https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu If this passes as evidence based midwifery, be afraid, be very afraid
Preparing for a vaginal birth after cesarean. This video covers essential steps for planning a VBAC and achieving a natural birth after C-section, with evidence-based resources and guidance.
I see you googling How To Manage Labor Pain. This video covers three essential steps pregnant women can take now to prepare for a natural birth, focusing on holistic methods and techniques for a safe, positive…
@vol4itsa75 @OlforLis @Zradon_Ka @TishakovaDi Насправді пологи, що почались не самі, а від індукції мають нижчий ризик кесаревого і інструментальних втручань. Тому відділення оболонок саме по собі це не погано. Та і навіть відділення оболонок не гарантує початок пологів. Ще тиждень можна ходити https://t.co/x14G1PkeIR
@Beth_boddisonxx Incorrect https://t.co/1gkOONl7t2 Not saying IOL is risk free. Most claims you're making were made by outcomes when IOL was offered due to post dates pregnancy or other medical complications meaning delivering the baby was advisable...
@truthoutthere12 @RoseStokes @drruthannharpur No. Evidence really, really, says it doesn’t. Vibes don’t beat prospective, multi centre studies of more than 3000 participants. https://t.co/SKTyUrOXuZ
@aoife_finnerty @sheena_byrom Arrive trial is the seminal study here ... reduction in cs rates with 39wk IOL https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu
@helenvecht @sue_haddon @justice4cassius @hypnobirthing @drruthannharpur @catherineroyuk https://t.co/SKTyUrOpFr
@KahalonRotem Sure https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu
@justice4cassius @catherineroyuk @autinveniamviam @NICEComms Sure ... https://t.co/JOEyeB0RT0
Her husband, Bill Grobman, is former @MySMFM president & among many the lead author of the paper reporting findings from the landmark ARRIVE trial. Can only imagine the dinner time convos & I wonder how much research is born outta this (I imagine) synergy. https://t.co/fSARDypTP8
RT @tjcjqps: Findings of the ARRIVE trial also indicate a potential benefit of prophylactic induction of #labor at 39 weeks to lower #cesar…
Study team used US natality data to quantify change in induction at 39 weeks after publication of the ARRIVE trial #SMFM23 https://t.co/DRKo79crCa
@martaaaapc La evidencia dice que disminuye la tasa de cesáreas: https://t.co/Legy0PqPev No obstante, no parece lo más fisiológico…
@AshleyGWinter Some evidence supports induction of labor at 39wks. I am not an OB, so chat with yours about it? https://t.co/8TJlGpSw9J
The ARRIVE trial randomized to induction of labor (IOL) and expectant management (EM) https://t.co/lxyjSDRBLk https://t.co/sCaG2ht1DK
━*＼麻酔科医の朝活／*━ 分娩誘発か？ 自然陣発か？ ━━━━━━━━━━━ 合併症のない初産婦で39週で誘発すると帝王切開率が低くなるというRCT（RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.93]）. ただ，帝王切開率が18.6% vs. 22.2%と高過ぎる. 解釈が難しい... https://t.co/dk9N45NkB1
@ObMD @AJOG_thegray Patient management details are outlined here: https://t.co/l9onllXcwO
@xjustsayjessx don't mind the haters. glad you made a decision that feels good to you. for what it's worth, high-quality data support your decision: https://t.co/nJn8KNpJZQ
RT @tjcjqps: Findings of the ARRIVE trial also indicate a potential benefit of prophylactic induction of #labor at 39 weeks to lower #cesar…
Findings of the ARRIVE trial also indicate a potential benefit of prophylactic induction of #labor at 39 weeks to lower #cesarean #delivery rates https://t.co/jt21gsMG6K #obgyn
@thelovelymaeve @NEJM Think it’s take from paper ‘Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women’ Grobman NEJM 2018 - 6106 low-risk, nulliparous
@maxwele2 @MartynPitman @ShaunLintern @FelicityJ @oxytocinmagic @mrslouiseharris https://t.co/SKTyUrOpFr I really, really advise reading the original research and not just the (biased, ideology based) criticism by https://t.co/FwKor8wuSJ that is the first Google hit if you search “ARRIVE Study”.
@AntoniaMakes @dean_deanhough @catherineroyuk @birthrightsorg 39w iol leads to induction in cs compared to expectant management: https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu
@NCTcharity @NICEComms Apart from this https://t.co/TuEJ2Swefn
And trials of IOL at 39w compared to expectant management (basically waiting) find a reduction in the need for CS with earlier induction. Ie: the exact opposite to what we have all been told https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu
La inducción de TDP a las 39 SDG, en nulíparas de bajo riesgo, no se encontró una frecuencia, significativamente, menor de un resultado perinatal adverso, pero sí resultó en una frecuencia, significativamente, menor para #parto por #cesárea. https://t.co/aDk9fOxRxe #ENARM https://t.co/IKyCIoEqmy
scheduled induction is a miraculous invention (with very good outcomes https://t.co/gltQlAPnjB) but you have to actually make it to the day
@bexxhenderson https://t.co/reyOdviOf6
@TessaVermilyea @TTVJRed529 @JoshMLOTX @StephthompsonMD @EarthWindFire82 @tnicholsmd @balleralert There’s a conversation among who? ACOG-certified physicians? Guessing no. https://t.co/4fikUJ7JoI https://t.co/VPmOhFjZgl
RT @RuthAnnHarpur: @JeniStevensS2S @james_harris @hannahdahlen @NICEComms If you think that’s wonderful, have I got news for you... a RANDO…
@KatyaMid03 @james_harris @SparklySwan80 @NICEComms @hannahdahlen I take your correlational data and raise you a randomised control trial ... https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu Looking forward to the @NICEComms reflecting the evidence and offering all women the option of iol from 39 weeks on https://t.co/OS1UfAf3uF
@JeniStevensS2S @james_harris @hannahdahlen @NICEComms If you think that’s wonderful, have I got news for you... a RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL ...
Great, let’s draw on an observational study that excluded women who had stillbirths. If only there was an RCT comparing 39w iol with expectant management to inform decisions... https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu If this passes as evidence based midwifery, be afraid, be very afraid
RT @medfetalBCN: La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparació…
RT @medfetalBCN: La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparació…
RT @medfetalBCN: La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparació…
RT @medfetalBCN: La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparació…
La inducción del parto a las 39 semanas en mujeres nulíparas de bajo riesgo es beneficioso para madre y feto en comparación a un manejo expectante? Según este artículo en @NEJM no supone un mejor resultado perinatal, pero sí menos cesáreas
RT @neel_shah: 5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does mar…
RT @neel_shah: 5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does mar…
RT @neel_shah: 5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does mar…
RT @neel_shah: 5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does mar…
5/ The ARRIVE trial found that induction at 39 weeks without medical indication does not reduce perinatal death but does marginally decrease cesarean rates (at academic medical centers) https://t.co/aGLOLqi5mZ
2018年のARRIVE trialでは所産婦の39週予定誘発は帝王切開率を下げる。周産期予後は変わらず。 https://t.co/YutJJyRkT8
2.)The ARRIVE trial: Induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did result in a significantly lower frequency of cesarean delivery. https://t.co/RfPklibm6z
@huisdoktertim @vollebergh @MarcGr8 @noudbuenen Nee, 38 weken is te vroeg, maar inleiden of afwachtend beleid bij 39 weken maakt geen verschil in uitkomsten voor kind maar leidt wel tot minder secundaire sectio’s. https://t.co/nihnSnrM6M
RT @dr_zulf: @placentadoc Also in the Arrive trial https://t.co/D5HrLRmU25
@placentadoc Also in the Arrive trial https://t.co/D5HrLRmU25
@upstatefederlst @selentelechia I pushed for 10 minutes once, maybe 20 min the other. I don't think I can get a baby out non-c-section without piles of pitocin and am glad to have it. this study was a big deal and challenged conventional wisdom about induction https://t.co/DsqPOfGqGF
RT @ICANBirth: You know what reduces the chance of cesarean even more than this? The midwife model of care. I'll have more thoughts on AR…
@DrJenBaker @ProfEmilyOster It's an interesting study but a very skewed sample - roughly half were also unemployed, half were not not living with a partner/ married etc. Questionable about who agreed to take part and why. https://t.co/Texux1vDID
@nursekateeRN I’ll try attaching the link again. Not sure why it’s not working. https://t.co/fr57UguldT
Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. Randomized controlled trial Grobman WA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 https://t.co/1vOr07qCcW https://t.co/883MQXP008
You’re aware that being induced a week before your due date actually makes it LESS likely you’ll need a surgical delivery, right? https://t.co/OEaVqroaeE https://t.co/8Cjm7wLjPy
#Induction of #labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women: no impact on adverse perinatal outcome (fewer cesarean delivery but with no impact on a population level). Induccción del parto en embarazos sanos a las 39 semanas. Sin impacto perinatal. https://t.co/vhBIpJcOpc
Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women | NEJM https://t.co/sZ4gRXPdGg
@monstruua @madresfera Probablemente este trabajo con más de 6000 embarazadas tenga algo que ver. https://t.co/d9Yyq9TiPp
@canvasonoil @elpartoesnuestr Esto es una encuesta que la SEGO hace para ver qué opinan los obstetras de los últimos estudios en inducciones precoces, no se decide nada con la encuesta. https://t.co/usDUQ8WwV2. En este que incluyen 6100 pacientes, no hay diferencias en cuanto a resultados perinatales.
RT @jimgthornton: @VenetiaSB ARRIVE trial. https://t.co/LGgdxeK5Ik Bottom of Table 3. Difference is small, but statistically significant…
@VenetiaSB ARRIVE trial. https://t.co/LGgdxeK5Ik Bottom of Table 3. Difference is small, but statistically significant, & in favour of the induction group. Hope I'm not misreading it.
@GillMoncrieff @RuthAnnHarpur @LizNewnham @Marytcurtin @flowepower66 @MidwivesIreland @TPM_Journal @sheena_byrom @Humanisingbirth @adweeks @millihill @abimcw @SquaringC @MidwifeMercedes @lessen_logan @janethemidwife @hannahdahlen @drtraceyc @CarolineHomer @Prof_AmyBrown @neel_shah @luciagreenwich @evitafernandez6 @all4maternity @TSM_Journal https://t.co/FIBsB0bpQn
RT @MichaelMAzizMD1: @kalamityjack Mostly helpful for making policy, not for individual patient care. Good example is cost analysis of eIOL…
@kalamityjack Mostly helpful for making policy, not for individual patient care. Good example is cost analysis of eIOL after ARRIVE trial. @fbwill_williams https://t.co/8z9le54Oxh https://t.co/Uu5krmUoQI
RT @noolslucas: Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly low…
RT @noolslucas: Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly low…
RT @noolslucas: Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly low…
RT @noolslucas: Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly low…
Will this study change practice on lw? ‘IOL at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous women did not result in a significantly lower frequency of a composite adverse perinatal outcome, but it did result in a significantly lower frequency of CS’ #oaa3dc2019 https://t.co/sZrr8ak4CW
Here is the link to ARRIVE trial
@kristatee This was the trial https://t.co/XFNg3qJzFw
RT @jimgthornton: @ProsserSnelling @alysse_firefly @jenhock13 @SagefemmeSB @SisterShawnRM @ThatMidwife @MCR_SB_Research @OBSevidence ARRIVE…
@ProsserSnelling @alysse_firefly @jenhock13 @SagefemmeSB @SisterShawnRM @ThatMidwife @MCR_SB_Research @OBSevidence ARRIVE, (AFFIRM was FM counting with XS IOL way before 39w. I muddle them too!), tested IOL at 39w. https://t.co/LGgdxeK5Ik NIHR decided a UK ARRIVE RCT not a priority. I think they were wrong. If others disagree, it's not too late to try again. Alex? @MCR_SB_Research
@HelenBLawyer @DrHFRyan The latest data suggests routine IOL at 39 weeks associated with less need for CS and better sense of control and pain management in labour https://t.co/1gkOONkzDu
@HelenBLawyer @DrHFRyan https://t.co/SKTyUrOpFr The most recent large randomised study suggested routine IOL at 39w actually led to lower rates of CSection than expectant management.
RT @medical_910: 産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM…
RT @medical_910: 産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM…
RT @medical_910: 産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM…
RT @medical_910: 産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM…
RT @medical_910: 産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM…
産科医「うーん、陣痛促進剤使ってみましょうか？」 妻「ええっでも陣痛促進剤を使ったほうが痛いって友人が数人言ってて…」 アスペ緩和ケア医「いや、多施設ランダム化研究では疼痛スコアは陣痛促進群のほうが有意に低いと報告されており(2018 NEJM)」 https://t.co/e3TqRUBlSs #陣痛促進剤 #出産
Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 513-523 （低リスク初産婦の39週での分娩誘発は、周産期複合有害転帰の発生率を減らさないが、帝王切開に関しては発生率を低下させる）
@Stroppybrunette @mooski101 @VenetiaSB @babywearingMW @birthpositive @elizabethduff2 @millihill @BerksMaternity @NatMatVoicesorg @NCTcharity @birthrightsorg @AIMS_online @MaryNewburn1 @NUHmaternity 2/2 The reason US data is included is because this was taken from the ARRIVE trial, which was a randomised controlled trial of IOL at 39wks vs waiting for labour in women in their 1st pregnancy. https://t.co/R7pBIXyBrG
@Santiag20493271 Sobre la inducción este @NEJM en primíparas es bastante elocuente. No más riesgos, no más cesáreas. https://t.co/mvCN5FIZtj
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
RT @Nopanaden: Que sepáis: 1) En el Reino Unido las primíparas van al hospital o a casas de parto. 2) La inducción se asocia en primíparas…
Great to have the wonderful William A. Grobman, MD, MBA @NMGynecology as our invited speaker for #Rothman #residents day speaker @WUSTLmed @WUSTLobgyn @macones @NEJM #csection #laborinduction https://t.co/BdzwhdVaeP https://t.co/K5mkky3yb1
Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women https://t.co/PlBD3taVOe
Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women | William A. Grobman, MD, MBA, et. al. @NEJM #csection #laborinduction https://t.co/UrEXq7x4Tr https://t.co/NFKNKz92RU
TM
NM
MN
FB
NL
DH
бЗ
DC
CH
AS
JS
SM
EN
松休
MG
AM
CH
JJ
B
DH
RB
CD
M
AM
GS
DU
GB
PC
MV
DM
J
ET
ギ
EN
DK
DZ
PH
PL
PB
RH
NF
L
JG
PG
AS
C
HN
JT
J
FW
MM
W
AG
TA
OR
NH
DM
MO
家
T
ぶ
ソ
ちだ
A脳
ND
MJ
JR
A
EG
NC
RF
MS
J
D
MG
G
EM
MV
I
AO
临丽
M
SM
DM
KC
NG