Induction of Labour versus Expectant Monitoring for Gestational Hypertension or Mild Pre-eclampsia after 36 Weeks' Gestation (HYPITAT)

• p. 6 Table 4, Fetal distress, Expectant monitoring

  20 (27%)

Judge's note: Checked on the p6 image. Every other row in both columns rounds correctly against 72 and 54. Printed as 27%, the column totals 100%; with 28% it would total 101%. The figure may therefore have been adjusted to force a 100% total, but other tables (for example Table 1 education) are not adjusted this way.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 2 Methods, Patients

  Randomisation was stratifi ed for centre, parity, and hypertensive-related disease

• p. 4 Statistical analysis

  stratifi ed for centre, parity, and presence of proteinuria

• p. 2 Methods, Patients

  stratifi ed for centre, parity, and hypertensive-related disease

Judge's note: Both passages checked on the page images (p2 Patients, p4 Statistical analysis). The paper defines pre-eclampsia as hypertension plus proteinuria, so in this population the two factors are probably the same thing. Only the wording differs, so this is a minor consistency point.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 6 Results, paragraph on primary outcome

  ranged from 0% for maternal mortality and eclampsia to 2% for post-partum haemorrhage

• p. 5 Table 3 footnote *

  n=157 for induction of labour, and n=191 for expectant monitoring

• p. 4 Statistical analysis

  missing data for relevant outcome measures were negligible

• p. 5 Table 3 footnote

  *Data are missing for some participants: n=157 for induction of labour, and n=191 for

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Both passages read on the p5 and p6 images. The proportions 3 (2%) and 4 (2%) match denominators of 157 and 191, so those n are the women with data, and about half of each arm lacks a value. The Methods say 24-h urine was collected only after a positive protein screen, which may explain the gap. However, the paper does not reconcile this with the 0–2% statement or with 'missing data … were negligible'.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 5 Results, last lines of right column

  11 (3%) were induced 2–4 days after randomisation, and two (1%) were induced 4 days after

Judge's note: The p5 image reads '4 days after', with no '>' symbol. The counts are consistent (288+65+11+2=366), but as printed the last two categories are not mutually exclusive.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 7 Discussion, para 1

  Surprisingly, fewer caesarean sections were needed in the induction group than the expectant monitoring group.

• p. 7 Discussion, para 3

  The reduced risk of caesarean section that we recorded after induction of labour

• p. 8 Discussion, para 5

  this intervention probably reduces the risk of caesarean section

• p. 6 Table 4, Caesarean section row; Results text

  0·75 (0·55–1·04; 0·085)*

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Checked p5, p6, p7, p8 and p9. 'Fewer caesarean sections' is literally true of the raw counts (54 vs 72). However, 'reduced risk ... that we recorded' and 'reduced need' present the caesarean and HELLP differences as findings, and the paper's own Results describe both as non-significant.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 9 Discussion, final paragraph

  associated with a reduced risk of severe hypertension or HELLP syndrome and subsequent reduced need for caesarean section

• p. 5 Table 3, HELLP syndrome row

  0·37 (0·12–1·14; 0·07)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Confirmed Table 3 on p5 and Table 4 on p6. The p6 Results text says that for HELLP 'the difference between intervention groups was not significant', and for caesarean section 'the difference was not significant (table 4)'. The concluding sentence on p9 presents both as findings. The wording goes further than the paper's own Results.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 7 Discussion, para 2

  recalculated the occurrence of the primary endpoint with progression to severe disease diagnosed from at least two measurements

• p. 6 Results, maternal outcome paragraph

  when progression to severe disease was diagnosed from high blood pressure measured on at least two occasions

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Checked p6 Results: after progression to severe disease (23% vs 36%), the text says 'The treatment effect was similar when progression to severe disease was diagnosed from high blood pressure measured on at least two occasions more than 6 h apart (11% [n=42] vs 19% [n=73]...)'. On p7 the Discussion says the primary endpoint was recalculated. No recalculated composite is reported. Table 3 gives only the 'Severe hypertension measured twice' component rows. Only the authors can say which quantity the 11%/19% figures refer to, or whether a recalculated composite exists.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 7 Discussion, para 1

  Adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups.

• p. 7 Table 5, Arterial pH <7·05 row

  0·46 (0·21–1·00; 0·043)§

• p. 7 Discussion para 1

  Adverse neonatal outcomes did not diff er

Judge's note: Checked on the p7 image. The statement holds for the composite neonatal outcome (p=0·276), but the unqualified plural conflicts with the one component the Results single out. Adding 'composite' would resolve it.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 9 Figure 3, cervical position Posterior, induction of labour column

  30/207 (15%)

Judge's note: The image of p9 shows 30/207 (15%). The printed RR 0·62 matches 30/207 vs 44/188, so the count is consistent and the percentage is the error.

Second check: another model agreed, code check

• p. 7 Discussion, para 2

  measurements of high blood pressure at least 6 h apart

• p. 6 Results, maternal outcome paragraph

  on at least two occasions more than 6 h apart

• p. 2 Methods, outcomes

  a minimum of 6 h apart

Judge's note: I confirmed all three wordings in the images of p2, p6 and p7. The Methods and Discussion say ≥6 h and the Results say >6 h. This is probably loose wording for the same analysis, so I treat it as a minor consistency point.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 7 Table 5, subheading

  Reasons for admission to an neonatal intensive care unit

Judge's note: The p7 image shows 'an neonatal'.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 9 Discussion, unfavourable cervix paragraph

  This paradoxal finding is explained

Judge's note: The image of p9 shows 'paradoxal'. It is a rare variant, so this is a cosmetic house-style point only.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 10 Reference 23

  Maternal-Fetal Medicin Units Network

Judge's note: The image of p10 shows 'Medicin' in the middle of a line, so this is not a hyphenation or extraction artefact.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 10 Reference 14

  NVOGnet voorlichting & richtlijen

• p. 10 Reference 14

  NVOGnet voorlichting & richtlijen.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the Dutch spelling 'richtlijnen'. The image of p10 shows 'richtlijen', and the URL in the same entry has 'richtlijn', which supports a misspelling.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 10 HYPITAT collaborators

  Kennermer Gasthuis, Haarlem

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the Haarlem hospital's name is Kennemer Gasthuis. The image of p10 shows 'Kennermer Gasthuis'.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 10 HYPITAT collaborators

  Albert Schweizer Hospital, Dordrecht

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the Dordrecht hospital is the Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis. The image of p10 shows 'Schweizer'.

Second check: none (judge only)