Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38517902›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Labor curves based on cervical dilatation over time and their accuracy and effectiveness: A systematic scoping review.

Johanne Mamohau Egenberg Huurnink, Ellen Blix, Elisabeth Hals, Anne Kaasen, Stine Bernitz, Tina Lavender, Mia Ahlberg, Pål Øian, Aase Irene Høifødt, Andrea Solnes Miltenburg and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07430358 (Obstetric Risk Assessment & Cesarean-delivery in Labor Estimation Using Artificial Intelligence Trial), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

NCT07430358 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Obstetric Risk Assessment & Cesarean-delivery in Labor Estimation Using Artificial Intelligence Trial (ORACLE-AI)

TypeinterventionalSponsorHadassah Medical OrganizationRan2026 to 2027Enrolled400ConditionsLabor, Obstetric, Pregnancy, Cesarean Section RateArmsSoftware-based, real-time AI dashboard providing continuous risk estimates for unplanned cesarean delivery during labor.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Johanne Mamohau Egenberg HuurninkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2814-8256
Ellen BlixFaculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Elisabeth HalsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, Norway.
Anne KaasenFaculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Stine BernitzFaculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9522-2348
Tina LavenderDepartment of International Public Health, Centre for Childbirth, Women's and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Mia AhlbergDepartment of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pål ØianDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Aase Irene HøifødtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Andrea Solnes MiltenburgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akershus University Hospital, Akershus, Norway.
Aase Serine Devold PayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6361-5983
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NOOslo University Hospital · NOAkershus University Hospital · NOInnlandet Hospital Trust · NOKarolinska Institutet · SELiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic scoping review was conducted to 1) identify and describe labor curves that illustrate cervical dilatation over time; 2) map any evidence for, as well as outcomes used to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the curves; and 3) identify areas in research that require further investigation.

methodsA three-step systematic literature search was conducted for publications up to May 2023. We searched the Medline, Maternity & Infant Care, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CINAHL, Scopus, and African Index Medicus databases for studies describing labor curves, assessing their effectiveness in improving birth outcomes, or assessing their accuracy as screening or diagnostic tools. Original research articles and systematic reviews were included. We excluded studies investigating adverse birth outcomes retrospectively, and those investigating the effect of analgesia-related interventions on labor progression. Study eligibility was assessed, and data were extracted from included studies using a piloted charting form. The findings are presented according to descriptive summaries created for the included studies. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Of 26,073 potentially eligible studies, 108 studies were included. Seventy-three studies described labor curves, of which ten of the thirteen largest were based mainly on the United States Consortium on Safe Labor cohort. Labor curve endpoints were 10 cm cervical dilatation in 69 studies and vaginal birth in 4 studies. Labor curve accuracy was assessed in 26 studies, of which all 15 published after 1986 were from low- and middle-income countries. Recent studies of labor curve accuracy in high-income countries are lacking. The effectiveness of labor curves was assessed in 13 studies, which failed to prove the superiority of any curve. Patient-reported health and well-being is an underrepresented outcome in evaluations of labor curves. The usefulness of labor curves is still a matter of debate, as studies have failed to prove their accuracy or effectiveness.

Indexed as

Labor Stage, FirstFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38517902
PMCPMC10959354
OpenAlexW4393066543

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.