Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women
2018 · paper · Clinical trials
A randomized trial of 6106 low-risk first-time mothers comparing labor induction at 39 weeks with expectant management. Serious perinatal complications were not significantly less frequent with induction, but cesarean delivery was less frequent (18.6% versus 22.2%).
2 findings
Substance In the Seizure row of Table 2, the relative risk "2.74 (0.91–8.12)" does not reproduce from the counts and group sizes printed in the same table: 11/3059 vs 4/3037 gives 2.73.
- p. 15 Table 2, Seizure row
2.74 (0.91–8.12)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page 15 image shows group sizes of 3059 and 3037 and seizure counts of 11 and 4. Every other component RR I recomputed matches its counts (0.66, 0.71, 0.74, 0.77, 1.28, 0.40); only seizure is off. The footnote says exact CIs were used for rare outcomes, so I did not recompute the interval (a Wald calculation gives about 0.87–8.57, but that is not the method the paper declares). The authors would need to confirm whether the point estimate should be 2.73.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Statistical Analysis section says "We compared continuous variables using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test", but the comparisons are between two independent randomized groups. The signed-rank test is a paired-data test; the rank-sum test is the one for independent groups.
- p. 5 Statistical Analysis, 2nd paragraph
We compared continuous variables using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test
- p. 5 Statistical Analysis
Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page 5 image shows "Wilcoxon signed-rank test". Every continuous comparison described is between the independent induction and expectant-management arms, and I found no paired comparison. This is most likely a naming slip for the rank-sum test, but only the authors can say which test was run.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
2 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording The text says "Of the 22,533 eligible women, 6106 (27%)". Figure 1 shows 50,581 evaluated and 27,600 who did not meet eligibility criteria, which leaves 22,981. The figure for 22,533 also leaves out the 448 women "withdrawn by their physician", whom Figure 1 lists separately from those who did not meet the criteria.
- p. 5 Results, Characteristics of the Participants
Of the 22,533 eligible women, 6106 (27%)
- p. 11 Figure 1
27,600 Did not meet eligibility criteria
Judge's note: On Figure 1 (page 11), the excluded total of 44,475 = 27,600 + 16,427 + 448, and 50,581 − 44,475 = 6106, so the figure is internally consistent. The text's 22,533 equals 22,981 − 448, so the text counts physician-withdrawn women as ineligible without saying so. The 27% consent rate holds under either denominator (26.6% vs 27.1%). This is a definitional inconsistency, not a wrong count.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The introduction opens with "RECOMMEDATION REGAEDING the timing of delivery are founded". It should read "Recommendations regarding": both words are misspelled, and the singular noun does not agree with "are founded".
- p. 2 Introduction, first line
RECOMMEDATION REGAEDING the timing of delivery are founded
- p. 2 Introduction, first line
RECOMMEDATION REGAEDING the timing of delivery
Judge's note: I checked the crop and page 2. The image shows the misspelled small-caps words exactly as quoted, so this is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)