[RESULTS] First baby labor poll

Well, the thread seems to have died, so everyone who wanted to weigh in must
have done. Here are the results:

35 labors/births before 41w1d
27 labors/births on/after 41w1d

The 35 births before 41w1d includes one set of twins, 7 inductions before
EDD, and 1 c-section for pre-eclampsia. If those births are removed from the
results, than the ratio is 26:27.

It's a very small sample, of course, but it's interesting to see that
without intervention prior to EDD, slightly more than 50% of the respondents
went to or beyond 41w1d.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message
newsVl8b.25306$n94.19304@fed1read04...
Well, the thread seems to have died, so everyone who wanted to weigh in
must
have done. Here are the results:

35 labors/births before 41w1d
27 labors/births on/after 41w1d

The 35 births before 41w1d includes one set of twins, 7 inductions before
EDD, and 1 c-section for pre-eclampsia. If those births are removed from
the
results, than the ratio is 26:27.

It's a very small sample, of course, but it's interesting to see that
without intervention prior to EDD, slightly more than 50% of the
respondents
went to or beyond 41w1d.
--
Thanks for doing that, that's great!

Circe wrote:
Well, the thread seems to have died, so everyone who wanted to weigh in must
have done. Here are the results:

35 labors/births before 41w1d
27 labors/births on/after 41w1d

The 35 births before 41w1d includes one set of twins, 7 inductions before
EDD, and 1 c-section for pre-eclampsia. If those births are removed from the
results, than the ratio is 26:27.

It's a very small sample, of course, but it's interesting to see that
without intervention prior to EDD, slightly more than 50% of the respondents
went to or beyond 41w1d.

I'm curious as to why you removed me (twins) as my labour was spontaneous.

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

"Truffles" wrote in message
...
I'm curious as to why you removed me (twins) as my labour was spontaneous.

Because I'm pretty sure all the actual studies done on length of gestation
are for singleton-only pregnancies. It's widely acknowledged that average
gestation is shorter for multiples than singletons.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote:

"Truffles" wrote in message
...

I'm curious as to why you removed me (twins) as my labour was spontaneous.


Because I'm pretty sure all the actual studies done on length of gestation
are for singleton-only pregnancies. It's widely acknowledged that average
gestation is shorter for multiples than singletons.

DOH! Sorry, my brain isn't working yet this morning. :-D

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

"Truffles" wrote in message
...
Circe wrote:
"Truffles" wrote in message
...
I'm curious as to why you removed me (twins) as my labour was
spontaneous.

Because I'm pretty sure all the actual studies done on length of
gestation
are for singleton-only pregnancies. It's widely acknowledged that
average
gestation is shorter for multiples than singletons.

DOH! Sorry, my brain isn't working yet this morning. :-D

Hey, that's okay. I certainly wouldn't want you to think you didn't count
because I didn't like you or something g!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote:

Hey, that's okay. I certainly wouldn't want you to think you didn't count
because I didn't like you or something g!

It's because I can't have a second cup of coffee. I've limited myself
to one a day but it just takes me longer in the morning to get my brain
in gear. :-D

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

Circe wrote:
Well, the thread seems to have died, so everyone who wanted to weigh in must
have done. Here are the results:

35 labors/births before 41w1d
27 labors/births on/after 41w1d

The 35 births before 41w1d includes one set of twins, 7 inductions before
EDD, and 1 c-section for pre-eclampsia. If those births are removed from the
results, than the ratio is 26:27.

Hey neat! Thanks Barbara! Seems we are a median population
here anyway :-D

--
-- I
mommy to DS (14m)
guardian of DH
EDD 05-17-2004
War doesn't decide who's right - only who's left

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:49:40 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

The 35 births before 41w1d includes one set of twins, 7 inductions before
EDD, and 1 c-section for pre-eclampsia. If those births are removed from the
results, than the ratio is 26:27.

I agree that mine should probably be removed. It wasn't spontaneous,
and my induction failed.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

"Circe" wrote in message
snip
It's a very small sample, of course, but it's interesting to see that
without intervention prior to EDD, slightly more than 50% of the
respondents
went to or beyond 41w1d.

That was an interesting little study, Barbara! Thanks for sharing the
results. I hope I can add my own "data" into the mix sometime soon ;-) I'm
still pretty comfortable and spry feeling, but I really don't want to be
still pregnant in October!

--
Em
edd 9/23/03
(38w4d)