Comparison of Different Methods of Labor Induction and Their Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Labor induction is a commonly used intervention in obstetric care, yet uncertainty persists regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of mechanical, pharmacological, and combined methods across different clinical settings. Variability in practice and patient characteristics continues to influence outcomes, and clear comparative evidence remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate maternal outcomes associated with different labor induction methods. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025 involving adult women with term singleton pregnancies were identified through structured database searches. Quantitative synthesis was performed using R version 4.5 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/). Risk ratios were pooled using a random-effects model to compare cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery within 24 hours, and uterine tachysystole across intervention groups. A total of 25 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and four studies with six comparisons were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in cesarean delivery rates between methods, while a higher likelihood of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was observed in selected interventions. A lower occurrence of uterine tachysystole was also identified in specific comparisons. These findings support individualized selection of induction methods based on clinical context and patient characteristics, with emphasis on balancing effectiveness and safety.