Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A NEW STUDY has revealed that inducing labour in women at high-risk of caesarean section may actually be beneficial, contradicting earlier studies suggesting a relationship between induction and caesarean rates.
The study, published today in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, reviews clinical trials on induction to look at how it affects the risk of caesareans in women with intact membranes, where the amniotic sac has not yet ruptured.
Rising C-section rates across North America and Europe continue to be a major concern for medical professionals and one factor that provides conflicting evidence and advice is induction of labour.
Of the 37 trials analysed, 27 included uncomplicated pregnancies over 37 weeks of gestation and ten covered pregnancies that were complicated with diabetes, suspected macrosomia, twins or at a high risk score for caesarean section. Researchers compared differences in caesarean rates between use of induction and expectant management, which involves close monitoring of a pregnant woman with complications until symptoms appear.
Only three trials documented statistically significant differences in rates between the two methods, two reported reductions with one reporting an increase in risk.
While the remaining trials reported non-significant differences in caesarean section rates, based on further analysis of the combined results the researchers suggest the overall caesarean section risk was lower by approximately 17 per cent with induction of labour.
The authors concluded that further clinical trials are needed to look at elective induction for women at a high risk of caesarean section.
“Induction of labour is one of the most common interventions in obstetrics and it is widely held that limiting induction will reduce caesarean section rates,” said co-author, Stephen Wood. “Our analysis suggests that this may not be the case.”
“However, it should be noted that the differences in caesarean section risk may have occurred due to factors other than induction and that more trials are needed to address whether labour induction would benefit women at high risk for caesarean section such as older or obese mothers.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The cases mix up the cost of designing the logo and mark with the cost of implementing it. The BP rebrand was so expensive because of how much signage had to be changed all over the world.
If it is done on a gradual basis (as Irish Rail are doing for example) it costs very little. You just renew signage with the new mark as the old signage wears out.
Quite often these rebrands are supposed to be internally symbolic. They mark a major change in an organisation’s development. The costs of these changes of direction are usually confounded with the rebranding.
Imagine being payed 1.4million by the BBC and having the audacity to produce that. By no means a bad logo but sure someone at the BBC could have rustled that up themselves
According to this, I’m actually worth about €78 million.
Catch you drips later.
10 and 11 were ripped off
“Hey we have millions here to spend on a new logo”
“Hang on a second and let me open Microsoft Word”
I think the last couple are misleading. They are not the cost of the logo but of rebranding. That includes changing every petrol station and van/tanker logos in BPs case. British airways changed all their tail fins some years ago and I think it was 100 million. Then they changed them back as so many People complained.
Accenture? Ass-enter more like….
Ha! Classic!
Every time i see the olympics logo it just looks like lisa Simpson going down on bart, how was this not noticed before it was released?
BBC. 1.4 million. Seriously?
Accenture IT consultants in my opinion are the biggest chancers and spoofers in the business.
Red sells…
The Google, Coca Cola, Twitter logos have been redesigned multiple times. The designers who did that work were paid.
Most of the large amounts were for more than just a logo design and many of the low amounts are highly questionable. If windows logos were designed internally the staff’s wages are still an expense that has to be accounted for.
have your say