Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29518643›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology2018

Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.

Edgardo Abalos, Olufemi T Oladapo, Mónica Chamillard, Virginia Díaz, Julia Pasquale, Mercedes Bonet, Joao Paulo Souza, A Metin Gülmezoglu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Postpartum hemorrhage in electronic health records: risk factors at admission and in-hospital occurrence.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Edgardo AbalosCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno 878, P6. (2000), Rosario, Argentina. Electronic address: edgardoabalos@crep.org.ar.
Olufemi 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 (RHR), World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva 27 CH-1211, Switzerland.
Mónica ChamillardCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno 878, P6. (2000), Rosario, Argentina.
Virginia DíazCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno 878, P6. (2000), Rosario, Argentina.
Julia PasqualeCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Moreno 878, P6. (2000), Rosario, Argentina.
Mercedes BonetUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva 27 CH-1211, Switzerland.
Joao Paulo SouzaUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva 27 CH-1211, Switzerland.
A Metin GülmezogluUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva 27 CH-1211, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite decades of research, the concept of normality in labour in terms of its progression and duration is not universal or standardized. However, in clinical practice, it is important to define the boundaries that distinguish what is normal from what is abnormal to enable women and care providers have a shared understanding of what to expect and when labour interventions are justified.

objectivesTo synthesise available evidence on the duration of latent and active first stage and the second stage of spontaneous labour in women at low risk of complications 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: Four authors extracted data on: maternal characteristics; labour interventions; duration of latent first stage, active first stage, and second stage of labour; and the definitions of onset of latent and active first stage, and second stage where reported. Heterogeneity in the included studies precluded meta-analysis and data were presented descriptively. MAIN

resultsThirty-seven studies reporting the duration of first and/or second stages of labour for 208,000 women met our inclusion criteria. Among nulliparous women, the median duration of active first stage (when the starting reference point was 4 cm) ranged from 3.7-5.9 h (95th percentiles: 14.5-16.7 h). With active phase starting from 5 cm, the median duration was from 3.8-4.3 h (95th percentiles: 11.3-12.7 h). The median duration of second stage ranged from 14 to 66 min (95th percentiles: 65-138 min) and from 6 to 12 min (95th percentiles: 58-76 min) in nulliparous and parous women, respectively. Sensitivity analyses excluding first and second stage interventions did not significantly impact on these findings

conclusionsThe duration of spontaneous labour in women with good perinatal outcomes varies from one woman to another. Some women may experience labour for longer than previously thought, and still achieve a vaginal birth without adverse perinatal outcomes. Our findings question the rigid limits currently applied in clinical practice for the assessment of prolonged first or second stage that warrant obstetric intervention.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricLabor Stage, FirstLabor Stage, SecondParityPregnancyTime FactorsFirst and second stage of labourLabour durationLabour onsetNormal labourSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29518643
PMCPMC5884320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.