ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2013
Evaluation of paperless partogram as a bedside tool in the management of labor.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping innovations in partograph technologies: a scoping review from 2000 to 2025.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Expert perspectives on essential parameters to monitor during childbirth in low resource settings: a Delphi study in sub-Saharan Africa.Reproductive health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe partogram has been heralded as one of the most important advances in modern obstetric care. However, some healthcare practitioners, especially in high-income countries, have questioned its effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to evaluate prospectively the use of a paperless partogram as a bedside tool in the management of labor. MATERIALS AND
methodsWomen were invited to participate in the trial if they were at 36 to 42 weeks of gestation, and carrying a singleton pregnancy, with a cephalic presentation. All women who met the criteria and gave informed consent were included in the study till the required sample size of 91 was obtained. Progress of labor was monitored on the basis of Alert estimated time of delivery (ETD) and Action ETD. At the time of the Action ETD, if woman had not yet delivered, a diagnosis of abnormal labor was made and arrangements were made for emergency obstetric care.
resultsOut of 91 women who participated in the study 55 (60%) were primigravida and 36 (40%) were multipara. The mean age of the participants was 25.36 years and the mean duration gestation was 281.9 days. The mean duration for delivery after Alert ETD was 4.3 hours. In our study, out of 91 participants, labor was induced only in 13% of the cases. The mean duration for delivery after Alert ETD was 4.7 ± 1.9 hours in the primigravida and 3.7 ± 1.8 hours in multipara, but these differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionIn our study, the paperless partogram was found to be convenient and effective in the management of labor. The mean duration for delivery after Alert ETD was 4.3 hours in our study, which was similar to the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation for partograms, with a four-hour action line, denoting the timing of intervention for prolonged labor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.