Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33853878›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of labour (CONDISOX): double blind randomised controlled trial.

Sidsel Boie, Julie Glavind, Niels Uldbjerg, Philip J Steer, Pinar Bor, CONDISOX trial group

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02553226 (Continued Versus Discontinued Oxytocin Stimulation of Labour in a Double-blind Randomised Controlled Trial), 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
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT02553226 phase4completednot on this map

Continued Versus Discontinued Oxytocin Stimulation of Labour in a Double-blind Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2016 to 2020Enrolled1,200ConditionsAdverse Reaction to OxytocinArmsOxytocin, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. An Appraisal of Labor Augmentation: An Update on Current Evidence and Practice.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Use and Effects of Augmentation of Labor with Oxytocin: A Single-Center, Retrospective, Case-Control Study of 4350 Women in Warsaw, Poland, 2015-2020.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Article
  9. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sidsel BoieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8725-2117
Julie GlavindDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Niels UldbjergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Philip J SteerAcademic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Pinar BorDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
CONDISOX trial group
Aarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Randers · DKChelsea and Westminster Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether discontinuing oxytocin stimulation in the active phase of induced labour is associated with lower caesarean section rates.

designInternational multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

settingNine hospitals in Denmark and one in the Netherlands between 8 April 2016 and 30 June 2020.

participants1200 women stimulated with intravenous oxytocin infusion during the latent phase of induced labour.

interventionWomen were randomly assigned to have their oxytocin stimulation discontinued or continued in the active phase of labour.

main outcome measureDelivery by caesarean section.

resultsA total of 607 women were assigned to discontinuation and 593 to continuation of the oxytocin infusion. The rates of caesarean section were 16.6% (n=101) in the discontinued group and 14.2% (n=84) in the continued group (relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.53). In 94 parous women with no previous caesarean section, the caesarean section rate was 7.5% (11/147) in the discontinued group and 0.6% (1/155)in the continued group (relative risk 11.6, 1.15 to 88.7). Discontinuation was associated with longer duration of labour (median from randomisation to delivery 282

conclusionsIn a setting where monitoring of the fetal condition and the uterine contractions can be guaranteed, routine discontinuation of oxytocin stimulation may lead to a small increase in caesarean section rate but a significantly reduced risk of uterine hyperstimulation and abnormal fetal heart rate patterns.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02553226.

Indexed as

Labor Stage, FirstLabor Stage, SecondAdultCesarean SectionDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHeart Rate, FetalHumansOxytocicsOxytocinParityPregnancyTime FactorsOxytocicsOxytocin

Identifiers

PMID33853878
PMCPMC8044921
OpenAlexW3155233802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.