Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23780653›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour.

Rebecca M D Smyth, Carolyn Markham, Therese Dowswell

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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. It is linked to trial NCT03039036 (A Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Amniotomy Versus Delayed Amniotomy Following Foley Catheter Ripening in Nulliparous Labor Induction), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT03039036 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Early Amniotomy Versus Delayed Amniotomy Following Foley Catheter Ripening in Nulliparous Labor Induction

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2017 to 2022Enrolled69ConditionsLabor InductionArmsAmniotomy, Foley Catheter, Misoprostol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Early versus late amniotomy during twin labor.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Oxytocin Administration in Low-Risk Women, a Retrospective Analysis of Birth and Neonatal Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, November 2020.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2020
    Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rebecca M D SmythSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. rebecca.smyth@manchester.ac.uk
Carolyn Markham
Therese Dowswell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 April 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing amniotomy alone versus intention to preserve the membranes. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review 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. Amniotomy alone versus intention to preserve the membranes (no amniotomy) for spontaneous labour There was no clear statistically significant difference between women in 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 1.63), maternal satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD -1.10, 95% CI -7.15 to 4.95) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00). There was no consistency between trials regarding the timing of amniotomy during labour in terms of cervical dilatation. Amniotomy alone versus intention to preserve the membranes (no amniotomy) for spontaneous labours that have become prolonged There was no clear statistically significant difference between women in the amniotomy and control group in caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.08), maternal satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 22.00, 95% CI 2.74 to 41.26) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.11). 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

AmnionFemaleHumansLabor, InducedLabor Stage, FirstPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23780653
PMCPMC11299146

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.