Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18165411›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2008

Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour.

James P Neilson

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

James P NeilsonSchool of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK. jneilson@liverpool.ac.uk
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntentional artificial rupture of the amniotic membranes during labor, sometimes called amniotomy or "breaking of the waters," is one of the most commonly performed procedures in modern obstetric and midwifery practice. The primary aim of amniotomy is to speed up contractions and, therefore, shorten the length of labor. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the woman and infant.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of amniotomy alone for 1) routinely shortening all labors that start spontaneously and 2) shortening labors that have started spontaneously but have become prolonged. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 30, 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing amniotomy alone with intention to preserve the membranes. We excluded quasi-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed identified studies for inclusion. Both authors extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. MAIN

resultsWe have included 14 studies in this review, involving 4,893 women. There was no evidence of any statistical difference in length of first stage of labor (weighted mean difference -20.43 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] -95.93 to 55.06), maternal satisfaction with childbirth experience (standardized mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.04), or low Apgar score less than seven at 5 minutes (relative risk 0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.05). Amniotomy was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery compared with women in the control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.62). There was no consistency between papers regarding the timing of amniotomy during labor in terms of cervical dilatation. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOn the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot recommend that amniotomy be introduced routinely as part of standard labor management and care. We do recommend that the evidence presented in this review be made available to women offered an amniotomy and suggest that it may be useful as a foundation for discussion and any resulting decisions made between women and their caregivers.

Identifiers

PMID18165411
OpenAlexW243524936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.