ArticleScientific reports2023
First stage of labour duration and associated risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Impact of active phase duration on neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes: A systematic analysis of parity stratification, body mass index interaction, and predictive modeling in a retrospective cohort.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- More than the passage of time: neonatal health and active labor duration, the mediating role of chorioamnionitis.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Observational
- Risk of postpartum hemorrhage with increasing first stage labor duration.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Labor patterns of spontaneous first-stage labor in Chinese women with normal neonatal outcomes.PloS one · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior evidence evaluating the benefits and harms of expectant labour duration during active first stage is inconclusive regarding potential consequences for the neonate. Population-based cohort study in Stockholm-Gotland region, Sweden, including 46,040 women (Robson 1), between October 1st, 2008 and June 15th, 2020. Modified Poisson regression was used for the association between active first stage of labour duration and adverse neonatal outcomes. 94.2% experienced a delivery with normal neonatal outcomes. Absolute risk for severe outcomes increased from 1.9 to 3.0%, moderate outcomes increased from 2.8 to 6.2% (> 10.1 h). Compared to the reference, (< 5.1 h; median), the adjusted relative risk (aRR) of severe neonatal outcome significantly increased beyond 10.1 h (> 90th percentile) (aRR 1.53, 95% CI 1.26, 1.87), for moderate neonatal outcome the aRR began to slowly increase beyond 5.1 h (≥ 50 percentile; aRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.24, 1.58). Mediation analysis indicate that most of the association was due to a longer active first stage of labour, 13% (severe neonatal outcomes) and 20% (moderate neonatal outcomes) of the risk was mediated (indirect effect) by longer second stage of labour duration. We report an association between increasing active first stage duration and increased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. We did not observe a clear labour duration risk threshold.
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.