ArticleMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2014
Rates and indicators for amniotomy during labor--a descriptive cross sectional study between primigravidas and gravida 2 and above.
Article in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial rupture of membranes (Amniotomy) is a common obstetric intervention. Its rates and indications had been subjected to criticism in medical literature. The current practices recommend to reduce its rate and keep the birthing process as natural as possible.
aimThis observational study aimed to describe the rates and indicators for practice of artificial rupture of membranes (Amniotomy) during normal labor and to determine if any significant differences existed between women who have had one pregnancy (PG) and women who have already delivered two or more children (G2 and above) on this obstetric interventions: artificial rupture of membranes (ARM).
resultsThere were no PG participants with ruptured membranes whereas slightly more than half of the G2 and above participants (n = 88) had ruptured membranes. The most frequent cause for ARM was active management of latent phase of labor (PG n = 20 and G2 and above n = 9). Furthermore, slow progress of labor (PG n = 17 and G2 and above n = 7) and concerns with fetal heart rate (PG n = 13 and G2 and above n = 5) had the next highest number of occurrences. Results from the proportions tests revealed that there was one significant difference between gravidity groups on the frequency of APH (p = 0.039). That is, G2 and above participants had amniotomy done for APH (5 of 32 = 15.63%) significantly more often than PG participants (4 of 89 = 4.49%). And although not statistically significant (p = 0.084), there were 21 cases within the PG group where ARM was performed for no specific reason (21 of 89 = 23.6%) compared to three cases within the G2 and above group (3 of 32 = 9.4%).
conclusionsAlthough ARM is a commonly performed procedure during labor, there is not much difference between its indications between PG and G2 and above. The only significantly different indication was antepartum hemorrhage which was higher in G2 and above. Amniotomy was also performed without any clear indication in 26.4% of PG and 9.4% of G2 and above. Considering ARM as obstetric intervention efforts should be done to reduce its rates. There is a need for arranging normal labor workshops to revise the indications and reviewing the rates after these workshops to reduce the rates of ARM.
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.