SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Conventional versus modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Trial
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for prediction of cephalic dystocia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Article
- Infective Endocarditis in Pregnancy Diagnosed Early Based on Elevated D-Dimer Levels: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 2. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2022Article
- Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in a Norwegian Region: a case-control study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Coexistence and prevalence of obstetric interventions: an analysis based on the grade of membership.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
- Article
- Comparison of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Late-Term Pregnancy and the Rate of Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Study in Ten Centers in South China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- First do no harm - interventions during labor and maternal satisfaction: a descriptive cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Risk Factors for Umbilical Cord Prolapse at the Time of Artificial Rupture of Membranes.AJP reports · 2018Article
- Development of quality indicators for low-risk labor care provided by midwives using a RAND-modified Delphi method.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- On predicting time to completion for the first stage of spontaneous labor at term in multiparous women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntentional artificial rupture of the amniotic membranes during labour, 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 labour. However, there are concerns regarding unintended adverse effects on the woman and baby.
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of amniotomy alone for routinely shortening all labours that start spontaneously. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing amniotomy alone versus intention to preserve the membranes. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed identified studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. MAIN
resultsWe have included 15 studies in this updated review, involving 5583 women. In the current review, data for women with spontaneous normal labour were pooled with data from one trial (involving 61 women) where women had spontaneous, but prolonged labour.There was no clear statistically significant difference between the amniotomy and control groups in length of the first stage of labour (mean difference (MD) -20.43 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -95.93 to 55.06), caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.62), maternal satisfaction with childbirth experience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.04) or low Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06). There was no consistency between papers regarding the timing of amniotomy during labour in terms of cervical dilatation. AUTHORS'
conclusionsOn the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot recommend that amniotomy should be introduced routinely as part of standard labour management and care. We recommend that the evidence presented in this review should be made available to women offered an amniotomy and may be useful as a foundation for discussion and any resulting decisions made between women and their caregivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23440804What OpenQuestion holds
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.