Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81(08): 870-895
DOI: 10.1055/a-1519-7713
GebFra Science

Induction of Labour. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015-088, December 2020)

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Sven Kehl
1   Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
Irene Hösli
2   Frauenklinik, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Ulrich Pecks
3   Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Philipp Reif
4   Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Graz, Graz, Austria
Ralf L. Schild
5   Klinik für Geburtshilfe und Perinatalmedizin, Diakovere Krankenhaus gGmbH, Hannover, Germany
Markus Schmidt
6   Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Sana Kliniken Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany
Dagmar Schmitz
7   Institut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
Christiane Schwarz
8   Fachbereich Hebammenwissenschaft, Institut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
Daniel Surbek
9   Frauenklinik, Inselspital, Universitätsspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Michael Abou-Dakn
10   Klinik für Gynäkologie, St. Joseph Krankenhaus, Berlin Tempelhof, Berlin, Germany
› Author Affiliations


Aim The aim of this official guideline published and coordinated by the German Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in cooperation with the Austrian Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG) and the Swiss Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (SGGG) is to provide a consensus-based overview of the indications, methods and general management of induction of labour by evaluating the relevant literature.

Methods This S2k guideline was developed using a structured consensus process which included representative members from various professions; the guideline was commissioned by the guidelines commission of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG.

Recommendations The guideline provides recommendations on the indications, management, methods, monitoring and special situations occurring in the context of inducing labour.

Publication History

Received: 25 May 2021

Accepted after revision: 27 May 2021

Article published online:
09 August 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM. et al. Risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 76-82
  • 2 Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM. et al. The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 309.e1-309.e7
  • 3 Vilchez G, Nazeer S, Kumar K. et al. Risk of Expectant Management and Optimal Timing of Delivery in Low-Risk Term Pregnancies: A Population-Based Study. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35: 262-270
  • 4 Sotiriadis A, Petousis S, Thilaganathan B. et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53: 26-35
  • 5 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 513-523
  • 6 Kehl S, Kupprion C, Weiss C. et al. [Impact of a Guideline for Management of Pregnancy beyond Term and its Influence on Clinical Routine]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2015; 219: 87-91
  • 7 Pretscher J, Weiss C, Dammer U. et al. [Induction of Labour in Nulliparous Women Beyond Term in a Low-Risk Population]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2019; 223: 33-39
  • 8 Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG 2014; 121: 674-685 discussion 685
  • 9 Reddy UM, Ko CW, Willinger M. Maternal age and the risk of stillbirth throughout pregnancy in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 764-770
  • 10 Antenatal Care for uncomplicated Pregnancies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines. London; 2019
  • 11 Schafer-Graf UM, Gembruch U, Kainer F. et al. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) – Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Guideline of the DDG and DGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry Number 057/008, February 2018). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78: 1219-1231
  • 12 Alberry M, Soothill P. Management of fetal growth restriction. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92: F62-F67
  • 13 Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B. et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 400-408
  • 14 Kehl S, Dotsch J, Hecher K. et al. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77: 1157-1173
  • 15 Glantz A, Marschall HU, Mattsson LA. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: Relationships between bile acid levels and fetal complication rates. Hepatology 2004; 40: 467-474
  • 16 Brouwers L, Koster MP, Page-Christiaens GC. et al. Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: maternal and fetal outcomes associated with elevated bile acid levels. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 100.e1-100.e7
  • 17 Kawakita T, Parikh LI, Ramsey PS. et al. Predictors of adverse neonatal outcomes in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 570.e1-570.e8
  • 18 Williamson C, Hems LM, Goulis DG. et al. Clinical outcome in a series of cases of obstetric cholestasis identified via a patient support group. BJOG 2004; 111: 676-681
  • 19 Puljic A, Kim E, Page J. et al. The risk of infant and fetal death by each additional week of expectant management in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 667.e1-667.e5
  • 20 Ovadia C, Seed PT, Sklavounos A. et al. Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses. Lancet 2019; 393: 899-909
  • 21 Hypertensive Schwangerschaftserkrankungen: Diagnostik und Therapie. AWMF 2019. Accessed January 15, 2020 at:
  • 22 Saccone G, Della Corte L, Maruotti GM. et al. Induction of labor at full-term in pregnant women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019; 98: 958-966
  • 23 Society of Maternal-Fetal (SMFM) Publications Committee. Electronic address: SMFM Statement on Elective Induction of Labor in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women at Term: the ARRIVE Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221: B2-B4
  • 24 Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 573-584
  • 25 Diedrich JT, Drey EA, Newmann SJ. Society of Family Planning clinical recommendations: Cervical preparation for dilation and evacuation at 20–24 weeksʼ gestation. Contraception 2020; 101: 286-292
  • 26 Nabors GC. Castor oil as an adjunct to induction of labor: critical re-evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1958; 75: 36-38
  • 27 Holmes OM. Induction of Labor: Using Quinin, Castor Oil, Rupture of Membranes, and Nasal Pituitrin. Cal West Med 1934; 41: 241-244
  • 28 Nabi HA, Aflaifel NB, Weeks AD. A hundred years of induction of labour methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 179: 236-239
  • 29 Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Sexual intercourse for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (02) CD003093
  • 30 Castro C, Afonso M, Carvalho R. et al. Effect of vaginal intercourse on spontaneous labor at term: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290: 1121-1125
  • 31 Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ. et al. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (09) CD007701
  • 32 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T. et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20: 1-584
  • 33 AWMF 015-081 (S3). Adipositas und Schwangerschaft. AWMF 2020. Accessed April 01, 2020 at:
  • 34 Marchi J, Berg M, Dencker A. et al. Risks associated with obesity in pregnancy, for the mother and baby: a systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev 2015; 16: 621-638
  • 35 Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP. et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001; 25: 1175-1182
  • 36 Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM. et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1002-1011
  • 37 Bleu G, Demetz J, Michel S. et al. Effectiveness and safety of induction of labor for term breech presentations. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017; 46: 29-34
  • 38 Macharey G, Ulander VM, Heinonen S. et al. Induction of labor in breech presentations at term: a retrospective observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 293: 549-555
  • 39 Burgos J, Arana I, Garitano I. et al. Induction of labor in breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study. J Perinat Med 2017; 45: 299-303
  • 40 Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Haslam RR. Twins Timing of Birth Trial Group. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 964-973
  • 41 Suzuki S, Otsubo Y, Sawa R. et al. Clinical trial of induction of labor versus expectant management in twin pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2000; 49: 24-27
  • 42 Dodd JM, Deussen AR, Grivell RM. et al. Elective birth at 37 weeksʼ gestation for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (02) CD003582
  • 43 Dias T, Thilaganathan B. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 1676 author reply 1677
  • 44 Welsh A, Clements S, Henry A. et al. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy at term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomised Trial. BJOG 2012; 119: 1675-1676 author reply 1676–1677
  • 45 Cheong-See F, Schuit E, Arroyo-Manzano D. et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 354: i4353
  • 46 Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 169: Multifetal Gestations: Twin, Triplet, and Higher-Order Multifetal Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128: e131-e146
  • 47 Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M. et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 50-59
  • 48 Wood S, Tang S, Ross S. et al. Stillbirth in twins, exploring the optimal gestational age for delivery: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121: 1284-1290 discussion 1291
  • 49 Robinson BK, Miller RS, DʼAlton ME. et al. Effectiveness of timing strategies for delivery of monochorionic diamniotic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 53.e1-53.e7
  • 50 Bahtiyar MO, Emery SP, Dashe JS. et al. The North American Fetal Therapy Network consensus statement: prenatal surveillance of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 118-123
  • 51 Emery SP, Bahtiyar MO, Dashe JS. et al. The North American Fetal Therapy Network Consensus Statement: prenatal management of uncomplicated monochorionic gestations. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 1236-1243
  • 52 Sullivan AE, Hopkins PN, Weng HY. et al. Delivery of monochorionic twins in the absence of complications: analysis of neonatal outcomes and costs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 257.e1-257.e7
  • 53 Burgess JL, Unal ER, Nietert PJ. et al. Risk of late-preterm stillbirth and neonatal morbidity for monochorionic and dichorionic twins. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 578.e1-578.e9
  • 54 Rossi AC, Prefumo F. Pregnancy outcomes of induced labor in women with previous cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 273-280
  • 55 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR. et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 3-8
  • 56 Naef 3rd RW, Ray MA, Chauhan SP. et al. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery with a lower-segment, vertical uterine incision: is it safe?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1666-1673 discussion 1673–1674
  • 57 Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT. et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (5 Pt 1): 735-740
  • 58 Practice bulletin no. 143: medical management of first-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 676-692
  • 59 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 135: Second-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 1394-1406
  • 60 Clinical Practice Handbook for safe Abortion. WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. Geneva: 2014
  • 61 Morris JL, Winikoff B, Dabash R. et al. FIGOʼs updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 138: 363-366
  • 62 Abortion care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines. London; 2019