{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016683022571148183, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005888125613346418, 'mean_word_length': 5.891891891891892, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pregnancy Outcomes Among Individuals Who Enrolled Compared With Declined Enrollment in A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE).

INTRODUCTION In the ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management), Grobman et al1 report multiple benefits for low-risk nulliparous individuals who were induced at 39 weeks of gestation compared with undergoing expectant management. However, because 73% of the eligible individuals declined participation, there are concerns for participation bias impugning the trial’s generalizability.2 The primary objective of this retrospective study was to compare the peripartum outcomes among individuals who were eligible and approached for participation in the ARRIVE trial at our center and subsequently were enrolled or declined to participate. We hypothesized that, compared with individuals who declined enrollment, those who enrolled in the ARRIVE trial will have a lower rate of cesarean birth and hypertensive disorder of pregnancy.