Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936715›Full record

Trial reportMaternal and child health journal2018

Comparing Different Partograph Designs for Use in Standard Labor Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Nigel J Lee, Jeremy Neal, Nancy K Lowe, Sue V Kildea

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Maternal and child health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nigel J LeeMidwifery Research Unit, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, QLD, Australia. nigel.lee@uq.edu.au.
Jeremy NealSchool of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Nancy K LoweCollege of Nursing, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Sue V KildeaMidwifery Research Unit, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Backgound Partographs are used in many labour settings to provide a pictorial overview of a woman's cervical dilation pattern in the first stage of labor and to alert clinicians to slow progress possibly requiring intervention. Recent reviews called for large trials to establish the efficacy of partographs to improve birth outcomes whilst highlighting issues of clinician compliance with use. Previous studies have also reported issues with participant recruitment related to concerns regarding the possibility of a longer labour. Objectives We sought to compare a standard partograph with an action line, to a newly designed partograph with a stepped line, to determine the feasibility of recruitment to a larger clinical trial. Methods A pragmatic, single-blind randomised trial wherein low-risk, nulliparous women in spontaneous labour at term were randomized to an action-line or stepped-line partograph. First stage labour management was guided by the allocated partograph. Primary outcomes included the proportion of eligible women recruited, reasons for failed recruitment and compliance with partograph use. Secondary outcomes included rates of intervention, mode of birth, maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results Of the 384 potentially eligible participants, 38% (149/384) were approached. Of these 77% (116/149) consented, with 85% (99/116) randomized, only nine women approached (6%) declined to participate. A further 9% (14/149) who were consented antenatally were not eligible at onset of labor and 7% (10/149) of women approached in the birth suite but did not meet the inclusion criteria. Compliance with partograph completion was 65% (action) versus 84% (dystocia line). Conclusions for Practice Participant recruitment to a larger randomized controlled trial comparing new labour management guidelines to standard care is feasible. Effective strategies to improve partograph completion compliance would be required to maintain trial fidelity.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesLabor, ObstetricAdultDelivery, ObstetricDystociaFemaleHumansLabor OnsetMidwiferyNurse MidwivesOxytocinParityPerinatal CarePilot ProjectsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeOxytocinAction line partographFirst stage laborLabor dystociaPartogramPartographStepped line partograph

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.