74 A multicenter trial of individualized labor curves and cesarean rates

Hamilton, Emily; Platt, Robert W.; Gauthier, Robert; McNamara, Helen; Miner, Louise; Rothenberg, Susan; Asselin, Guylaine; Sabbah, Robert; Benjamin, Alice; Lake, Marian; Vintzileos, Anthony

doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(01)80109-5

“…Our search strategy identified 12 studies for potential inclusion. Of those, six studies with 7706 women participating were included (Kenchaveeriah 2011;Lavender 1998a;Lavender 2006;Pattinson 2003;Walss Rodriguez 1987;Windrim 2006) and six were excluded (Cartmill 1992;Fahdhy 2005;Hamilton 2001;Hamilton 2004;Kogovsek 2000;Mathews 2007).…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intervention was therefore the training and not the partogram. There is no description of what midwives in the control group received Hamilton 2001 This study was presented in abstract form only and lacked detail. It was particularly unclear whether participants were in spontaneous labour and whether they were at term.…”

Section: Fahdhy 2005mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term

Lavender

¹

,

Hart²,

Smyth

³

2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The partogram (sometimes known as partograph) is usually a pre-printed paper form on which labour observations are recorded. The aim of the partogram is to provide a pictorial overview of labour, to alert midwives and obstetricians to deviations in maternal or fetal wellbeing and labour progress. Charts often contain pre-printed alert and action lines. An alert line represents the slowest 10% of primigravid women's labour progress. An action line is placed a number of hours after the alert line (usually two or four hours) to prompt effective management of slow progress of labour. Objectives-To determine the effect of use of partogram on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. To determine the effect of partogram design on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. Search methods-We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2012). Selection criteria-Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of partogram with no partogram, or comparison between different partogram designs. Data collection and analysis-Three review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. When one review author was also the trial author, the two remaining authors assessed the studies independently. Main results-We have included six studies involving 7706 women in this review; two studies assessed partogram versus no partogram and the remainder assessed different partogram designs. There was no evidence of any difference between partogram and no partogram in caesarean

show abstract

“…There is no description of what midwives in the control group received Hamilton 2001 This study was presented in abstract form only and lacked detail. It was particularly unclear whether participants were in spontaneous labour and whether they were at term.…”

Section: Fahdhy 2005mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term

Lavender¹,

O’Brien²,

Hart³

2005

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-The partogram (sometimes known as partograph) is usually a pre-printed paper form on which labour observations are recorded. The aim of the partogram is to provide a pictorial overview of labour, to alert midwives and obstetricians to deviations in maternal or fetal wellbeing and labour progress. Charts often contain pre-printed alert and action lines. An alert line represents the slowest 10% of primigravid women's labour progress. An action line is placed a number of hours after the alert line (usually two or four hours) to prompt effective management of slow progress of labour.Objectives-To determine the effect of use of partogram on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.To determine the effect of partogram design on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. Search methods-We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2012).Selection criteria-Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of partogram with no partogram, or comparison between different partogram designs.Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts section (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.70); instrumental vaginal delivery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.06) between the groups. When compared to a four-hour action line, women in the two-hour action line group were more likely to require oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22). When the three-and four-hour action line groups were compared, caesarean section rate was lowest in the four-hour action line group and this difference was statistically significant (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.70, n = 613, one trial). When a partogram with a latent phase (composite) and one without (modified) were compared, the caesarean section rate was lower in the partograph without a latent phase (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50, n = 743, one trial).Authors' conclusions-On the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot recommend routine use of the partogram as part of standard labour management and care. Given the fact that the partogram is currently in widespread use and generally accepted, it appears reasonable, until stronger evidence is available, that partogram use should be locally determined. Further trial evidence is required to establish the efficacy of partogram use. BACKGROUND Description of the conditionDetection of prolonged labour is important as both postpartum haemorrhage and infection are more common in women with long labours (Neilson 2003). These risks are greater in developing countries with poorly-resourced health services.

show abstract

“…Some authors have suggested that the pattern of labor progress in contemporary obstetrics differs significantly from the Friedman curve and that the statistical methods used by Friedman were inadequate (11–16). For example, Zhang et al have reassessed the labor curve using survival analysis to quantify the time interval of cervical dilation from 1 cm to the next as a means of describing labor progress (14).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%