1. Rayburn W.F., Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: Present concerns and future strategies // Obstet. Gynecol. 2002. Vol. 100, № 1. P. 164-167.
2. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: Induction of labour at or beyond term // WHO recommendations: Induction of labour at or beyond term. 2018.
3. Martin J.A. et al. Births: Final for 2017// Natl. Vital Stat. Reports. 2018. Vol. 67, № 8. P. 1-49.
4. Aaron Caughey LB. et al. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 176: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor. 2009. № 176.
5. HedegaardM.etal.Perinataloutcomesfollowinganearlierpost-termlabour induction policy: A historical cohort study // BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015. Vol. 122, № 10. P. 1377-1385.
6. Hussain A.A. et al. Elective induction for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: A systematic review with meta-analysis // BMC Public Health. BioMed Central Ltd, 2011. Vol. 11, № SUPPL. 3. P. S5.
7. Laughon S.K. et al. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012. Vol. 206, № 6. P. 486.el-486.e9.
8. Melamed N. et al. PInduction of labor before 40 weeks is associated with lower rate of cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus resented at the 36th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Atlanta, GA, February 1-6,2016. // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Elsevier Inc., 2016. Vol. 214, № 3. P. 364.el-364.e8.
9. Souter V. et al. Maternal and newborn outcomes with elective induction of labor at term // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019. Vol. 220, № 3.
10. Chodankar R., Sood A., Gupta J. An overview of the past, current and future trends for cervical ripening in induction of labour // Obstet. Gynaecol. 2017. Vol. 19, № 3. P. 219-226.
11. Gupta J. et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour—An international multicentre observational study // Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018. Vol. 229. P. 70-75.
12. Marconi A. Recent advances in the induction of labor [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] // F1000Research. Faculty of 1000 Ltd, 2019. Vol. 8.
13. Penfıeld C.A., Wing D.A. Labor Induction Techniques: Which Is the Best? // Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. Elsevier Inc, 2017. Vol. 44, № 4. P. 567-582.
14. Bailit J.L. et al. Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women II Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Mosby, Inc, 2015. Vol. 212, № 1. p. Ю3.el– 103.e7.
15. Grobman W.A. et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women // N. Engl. J. Med. 2018. Vol. 379, № 6. P. 513-523.
16. Nippita T. A. et al. Methods of classification for women undergoing induction of labour: A systematic review and novel classification system // BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015. Vol. 122, № 10. P. 1284-1293.
17. Nakano T. et al. Factors associated with emergency cesarean delivery during induction of labor in nulliparous women aged 35 years or older at term // J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018. Vol. 44, № 9. P. 1747-1751.
18. Bergholt T. et al. Maternal age and risk of cesarean section in women with induced labor at term—A Nordic register-based study // Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020. Vol. 99, № 2. P. 283-289.
19. Gunatilake R.P. et al. Predictors of failed trial of labor among women with an extremely obese body mass index // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Elsevier Inc, 2013. Vol. 209, № 6. P. 562.el-562.e5.
20. Maged A.M. et al. Effect of maternal obesity on labor induction in postdate pregnancy // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018. Vol. 298, № 1.
21. Wolfe H. et al. Risk of cesarean in obese nulliparous women with unfavorable cervix: Elective induction vs expectant management at term // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Elsevier Inc, 2014. Vol. 211, № 1. P. 53.el-53.e5.
22. Carpenter J.R. Intrapartum management of the obese gravida // Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016. Vol. 59, № 1. P. 172-179.
23. Carlson N.S., Hernandez T.L., Hurt K.J. Parturition dysfunction in obesity: Time to target the pathobiology // Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 2015.Vol. 13, № 1.P. 1-14.
24. Garabedian M.J. et al. Extreme morbid obesity and labor outcome in nulliparous women at term // Am. J. Perinatol. 2011. Vol. 28, № 9. P. 729-734.
25. Rossi R. et al. Predictive Model for Failed Induction of Labor Among Obese Women // Obstet. Gynecol. Wolters Kluwer Health, 2019. Vol. 134, № 3.
26. Gibbs Pickens C.M. et al. Term Elective Induction of Labor and Pregnancy Outcomes among Obese Women and Their Offspring // Obstet. Gynecol. 2018. Vol. 131, №1. P. 12-22.
27. Kawakita T. et al.53: Predicting vaginal delivery in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017. Vol. 216, № 1. P. S38-S39.
28. Hermann Μ. et al. The risk of prelabor and intrapartum cesarean delivery among overweight and obese women: Possible preventive actions // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Elsevier Ltd, 2015. Vol. 212, № 2. P. 241.el-241.e9.
29. Coates D. et al. A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour // PLoS One / ed. Mastrolia S.A. 2020. Vol. 15,№1.P. e0228196.
30. Stålberg K. et al. A narrow pelvic outlet increases the risk for emergency cesarean section // Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2006. Vol. 85, № 7. P. 821-824.
31. Korhonen U., Taipale P., Heinonen S. The diagnostic accuracy of pelvic measurements: threshold values and fetal size // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014. Vol. 290, № 4. P. 643-648.
32. Gleason R.L. et al. A safe, low-cost, easy-to-use 3D camera platform to assess risk of obstructed labor due to cephalopelvic disproportion // PLoS One. 2018. Vol. 13, № 9. P. 1-30.
33. Malonga F.K. et al. External anthropometric measurement and pelvimetry among nulliparous women in lubumbashi: Risk factors and predictive score of mechanical dystocia // Pan Afr. Med. J. 2018. Vol. 31. P. 1-9.