ArticleRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P2024
Methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and analyze the use of methods of induction and augmentation of labor in a freestanding birth center (FBC).
methodCross-sectional study carried out at a FBC located in São Paulo (SP), with all women booked from 2011 to 2021 (n = 3,397).
resultsThe majority of women (61.3%) did not receive any method. The methods were used alone or in combination (traditional Chinese medicine, massage, castor oil, stimulating tea, amniotomy, and oxytocin). Traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture, acupressure, and moxa) was the most used method (14.7%) and oxytocin was the least frequent (5.1%). The longer the water breaking time, the greater the number of methods used (p < 0.001). Amniotomy was associated with maternal transfers (p < 0.001).
conclusionInduction and augmentation of labor were strictly adopted. The use of natural or non-pharmacological methods prevailed. Robust clinical studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods of stimulation of childbirth, in addition to strategies for their implementation in other childbirth care services, to really prove the effectiveness of non-pharmacological methods in the parturition process, that is, in labor and birth.
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.