ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2019
The transition from latent to active labor and adverse obstetrical outcomes.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Induction of labor compared to expectant management in term nulliparas with a latent phase of labor of more than 8 hours: a randomized trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Trial
- Changes of serum cortisol during pregnancy and labor initiation: an onsite cross-sectional study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- First stage of labour duration and associated risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Latent phase duration and associated outcomes: a contemporary, population-based observational study.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Hospital Admission in the Latent versus the Active Phase of Labor: Comparison of Perinatal Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Transcriptome changes in maternal peripheral blood during term parturition mimic perturbations preceding spontaneous preterm birth†.Biology of reproduction · 2022Article
- The association between longer durations of the latent phase of labor and subsequent perinatal processes and outcomes among midwifery patients.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecommendations on preventing primary cesarean delivery removed the previously defined time limits for latent labor (defined as ending at 6 cm) and urged clinicians to avoid cesarean delivery for labor abnormalities in the latent phase. However, relatively little is known about the implications of labor curve abnormalities from 4 to 6 cm and subsequent outcomes.
objectiveTo examine the association between length of time for dilation from 4 to 6 cm, delivery outcomes, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. STUDY
designThis is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients at ≥37 weeks presenting in spontaneous or induced labor with a nonanomalous living singleton in vertex presentation. Patients with a history of cesarean delivery or who did not achieve 6-cm dilation were excluded. We used interval censored regression to determine the 90th percentile for dilation time from 4 to 6 cm and used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for adverse outcomes for patients above this cutoff percentile compared with those at or below. Analyses were adjusted for obesity, nulliparity, race, hypertension, diabetes, and type of labor (induced vs spontaneous/augmented). Outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal morbidity (composite of postpartum fever, wound infection, hemorrhage), and neonatal morbidity (composite of neonatal death, hypothermic therapy, mechanical ventilation, respiratory distress, meconium aspiration syndrome, seizure, or treatment of sepsis). In addition, we created receiver operator characteristic curves to predict cesarean delivery, and maternal and neonatal morbidity based on time to dilate from 4 to 6 cm. The cutoff for time for each outcome was identified using the Youden index to maximize sensitivity and specificity, and test characteristics were computed.
resultsThere were 7355 patients eligible for analysis, 728 (10%) had dilation times from 4 to 6 cm >10.3 hours, which was the 90th percentile, and 6627 (90%) had dilation times ≤10.3 hours. Having dilation time from 4 to 6 cm above the 90th percentile (10.3 hours) was associated with cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.52), composite maternal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.00), and composite neonatal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio 1.92; 95% confidence interval 1.52-2.4). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for predicting cesarean delivery was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.75). The test characteristics for the cutoff of 9.75 hours were sensitivity 68.3% (95% confidence interval, 64.8%-71.7%), specificity 66.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.0%-67.3%), positive predictive value 18.5% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-20.0%), and negative predictive value 94.9% (95% confidence interval, 94.2%-95.5%). For composite maternal morbidity, the cutoff was 6.98 hours and the area under the curve was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.65), whereas for composite neonatal morbidity it was 5.5 hours (area under the curve 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.71).
conclusionsPatients whose dilation time from 4 to 6 cm exceeds the 90th percentile have increased odds of cesarean delivery and postpartum complications. Prolonged dilation time has moderate predictive ability for adverse outcomes. Future studies should investigate at what point, if any, intervention is warranted during this period to reduce these risks.
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.