Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28892266›Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2018

Cervical dilatation patterns of 'low-risk' women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review.

O T Oladapo, V Diaz, M Bonet, E Abalos, S S Thwin, H Souza, G Perdoná, J P Souza, A M Gülmezoglu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. FIGO position statement on the use of the WHO labor care guide versus the partograph.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

O T OladapoUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
V DiazCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno, Rosario, Argentina.
M BonetUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
E AbalosCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno, Rosario, Argentina.
S S ThwinUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
H SouzaDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
G PerdonáDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
J P SouzaUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
A M GülmezogluUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe call for women-centred approaches to reduce labour interventions, particularly primary caesarean section, has renewed an interest in gaining a better understanding of natural labour progression.

objectiveTo synthesise available data on the cervical dilatation patterns during spontaneous labour of 'low-risk' women with normal perinatal outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, Global Health Library, and reference lists of eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational studies and other study designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data on: maternal characteristics; labour interventions; the duration of labour centimetre by centimetre; and the duration of labour from dilatation at admission through to 10 cm. We pooled data across studies using weighted medians and employed the Bootstrap-t method to generate the corresponding confidence bounds. MAIN

resultsSeven observational studies describing labour patterns for 99 971 women met our inclusion criteria. The median time to advance by 1 cm in nulliparous women was longer than 1 hour until a dilatation of 5 cm was reached, with markedly rapid progress after 6 cm. Similar labour progression patterns were observed in parous women. The 95th percentiles for both parity groups suggest that it was not uncommon for some women to reach 10 cm, despite dilatation rates that were much slower than the 1-cm/hour threshold for most part of their first stage of labours.

conclusionAn expectation of a minimum cervical dilatation threshold of 1 cm/hour throughout the first stage of labour is unrealistic for most healthy nulliparous and parous women. Our findings call into question the universal application of clinical standards that are conceptually based on an expectation of linear labour progress in all women.

fundingUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Cervical dilatation threshold of 1 cm/hour throughout labour is unrealistic for most women, regardless of parity.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLabor Stage, FirstParityPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRisk FactorsTime FactorsYoung AdultCervical dilatationfirst-stage labourlabour curvelabour dystocialabour progressionspontaneous labour

Identifiers

PMID28892266
PMCPMC6033146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.