Trial reportThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2024
A double-blinded randomised controlled study of fluid restriction versus liberal fluid during induction of labour: A pilot study.
Trial report in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcess intravenous fluid for women requiring an induction of labour may adversely affect the duration of labour and maternal/neonatal outcomes.
aimsThis study aimed to determine the difference in duration of labour and outcomes with a low background infusion rate, compared to liberal background intravenous fluid management. MATERIALS AND
methodsA double blind randomised controlled pilot study was performed on 200 women who underwent induction of labour at a single institution. Women were randomised to an intravenous rate of 40 mL/h versus 250 mL/h of Hartmann's solution. Fluid boluses were strictly controlled to limit bias. This trial was registered with the Australian clinical trial registry: ACTRN12621001298808.
resultsAnalysis of the total amount of fluid received showed good separation with Group 1 (40 mL/h) receiving 1,736 mL less than Group 2 (250 mL/h), median (interquartile range) 841 mL (458, 1691) versus 2,577 mL (1620, 4326) (P < 0.001). Median duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 24 min (P = ns). Subset analysis of nulliparous women showed that duration of labour was shorter in Group 1 by 83.5 min (P = ns).
conclusionAs this was a pilot study, a significant difference in duration of labour or secondary outcomes was not seen. Given the increasing numbers of nulliparous women having an induction of labour, potential for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and the associated higher rate of operative birth, this study guides power calculations and supports proof of concept for future research into optimum fluid management during induction of labour for these women.
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.