Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31589625›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Feasibility and effectiveness of electronic vs. paper partograph on improving birth outcomes: A prospective crossover study design.

Aminur Rahman, Tahmina Begum, Fatema Ashraf, Sadika Akhter, Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque, Tarun Kanti Ghosh, Monjur Rahman, Jelle Stekelenburg, Sumon Kumar Das, Parveen Fatima and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03509103 (Electronic Partograph), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT03509103 nacompletednot on this map

Electronic Partograph: A Way of Improving Partograph Use During Labour Monitoring Process in Selected District Hospitals in Bangladesh

TypeinterventionalSponsorInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, BangladeshRan2015 to 2016Enrolled1,012ConditionsProlonged LaborArmsElectronic Partograph
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Aminur RahmanHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0003-1434-3883
Tahmina BegumHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Fatema AshrafDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Shaheed Suhrawardi Medical College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sadika AkhterHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Dewan Md Emdadul HoqueMaternal and Child Health Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Tarun Kanti GhoshDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kushtia Medical College & Hospital, Kushtia, Bangladesh.
Monjur RahmanHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-7877-858X
Jelle StekelenburgDepartment of Health Sciences, Global Health, University Medical Centre/University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-6620
Sumon Kumar DasClinical and Nutrition Sciences Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Parveen FatimaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Iqbal AnwarHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDBangladesh Medical University · BDShaheed Suhrawardy Medical College · BDUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe partograph has been endorsed by World Health Organization (WHO) since 1994 which presents an algorithm for assessing maternal and foetal conditions and labor progression. Monitoring labour with a partograph can reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes such as prolonged labor, emergency C-sections, birth asphyxia and stillbirths. However, partograph use is still very low, particularly in low and middle income countries (LMICs). In Bangladesh the reported partograph user rate varies from 1.4% to 33.0%. Recently, an electronic version of the partograph, with the provision of online data entry and user aid for emergency clinical support, has been tested successfully in different settings. With this proven evidence, we conducted and operations research to test the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing an e-partograph, for the first time, in 2 public hospitals in Bangladesh.

methodsWe followed a prospective crossover design. Two secondary level referral hospitals, Jessore and Kushtia District Hospital (DH) were the study sites. All pregnant women who delivered in the study hospitals were the study participants. All nurse-midwives working in the labor ward of study hospitals were trained on appropriate use of both types of partograph along with standard labour management guidelines. Collected quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 23 statistical software. Discrete variables were expressed as percentages and presented as frequency distribution and cross tabulations. Chi square tests were employed to test the association between exposure and outcome variables. Potential confounding factors were adjusted using multivariate binary logistic regression methods. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board of the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b).

findingsIn total 2918 deliveries were conducted at Jessore DH and 2312 at Kushtia DH during one-year study period. Of them, 1012 (506 in each facility) deliveries were monitored using partograph (paper or electronic). The trends of facility based C-section rates was downwards in both the hospitals; 43% to 37% in Jessore and from 36% to 25% in Kushtia Hospital. There was a significant reduction of prolonged labour with e-partograph use. In Kushtia DH, the prolonged labour rate was 42% during phase 1 with the paper version which came down to 29% during phase-2 with the e-partograph use. The similar result was observed in Jessore DH where the prolonged labour rate reduced to 7% with paper partograph from the reported 30% prolonged labour with e-partograph. The e-partograph user rate was higher than the paper partograph during both phases (phase 1: 3.31, CI: 2.04-5.38, p < .001 and in phase 2: 15.20 CI: 6.36-36.33, p < .001) after adjusting for maternal age, parity, gestational age, religion, mother's education, husband's education, and fetal sex.

conclusionThe partograph user rate has significantly improved with the e- partograph and was associated with an overall reduction in cesarean births. Use of the e-partograph was also associated with reduced rates of prolonged labour. This study has added to the growing body of evidence on the positive impact of e-partograph use. We recommend implementing e-partograph intervention at scale in both public and private hospitals in Bangladesh.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03509103.

Indexed as

Electronics, MedicalPaperPregnancy OutcomeAdultAsphyxiaBangladeshCesarean SectionCross-Over StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFeasibility StudiesFemaleFetusHumansLabor, ObstetricPregnancyRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID31589625
PMCPMC6779270
OpenAlexW2979882851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.