Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18843690›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

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

Tina Lavender, Anna Hart, Rebecca M D Smyth

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02486822 (The Management of Spontaneous Labour in Primigravida), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02486822 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

The Management of Spontaneous Labour in Primigravida (SLiP): Labor Scale Versus WHO Partograph

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2015 to 2016Enrolled120ConditionsDystociaArmsAmniotomy, Oxytocin, Cesarean Section
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines: how evidence-based are they?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2014
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tina LavenderSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL. tlavender@uclan.ac.uk
Anna Hart
Rebecca M D Smyth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

objectivesTo 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 STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2008) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2007). 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 authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. When one author was also the trial author, the two remaining authors assessed the studies independently. MAIN

resultsWe have included five studies in this review, involving 6187 women; 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 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 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). AUTHORS'

conclusionsOn the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot recommend routine use of the partogram as part of standard labour management and care. We do recommend that the evidence presented should be used as a basis for discussion between clinicians and women. Further trial evidence is required to establish the efficacy of partogram use.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsPregnancy OutcomeCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUterine Inertia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.