ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2019
The Impact of Fetal Anomalies on Contemporary Labor Patterns.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of major congenital anomalies on obstetric outcomes in the United Arab Emirates: the Mutaba'ah Study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prevalence and trends of major congenital anomalies in Brazil: A study from 2011 to 2020.PloS one · 2025Article
- Fetal major anomalies and related maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare labor patterns in pregnancies affected by fetal anomalies to low-risk singletons. STUDY
designLabor data from the Consortium on Safe Labor, a multicenter retrospective study from 19 U.S. hospitals, including 98,674 low-risk singletons compared with 6,343 pregnancies with fetal anomalies were analyzed. Repeated-measures analysis constructed mean labor curves by parity, gestational age, and presence of fetal anomaly in women who reached full dilation. Interval-censored regression analysis adjusted for covariables was used to determine the median traverse times for labor progression.
resultsLabor curves for all groups indicated slower labor progress for patients with fetal anomalies. The most significant trends in median traverse times were observed in the preterm nulliparous and term multiparous groups. The median traverse times from 4 cm to complete dilation in the preterm nulliparous control versus anomaly groups were 5.0 and 5.4 hours (
conclusionLabor proceeds at a slower rate in pregnancies affected by anomalies.
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.