ArticleScientific reports2024
Variations in the use of oxytocin for augmentation of labour in Sweden: a population-based cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ready for change? The effect of profession and organization on patient safety culture and organizational readiness for change - a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Labor Induction with Synthetic Oxytocin and Infantile Colic: A Case-Control Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Reconceptualizing Intrauterine Resuscitation and Its Short-Term Impact.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
National Swedish data shows substantial variation in the use of oxytocin for augmentation of spontaneous labour between obstetric units. This study aimed to investigate if variations in the use of oxytocin augmentation are associated with maternal and infant characteristics or clinical factors. We used a cohort design including women allocated to Robson group 1 (nulliparous women, gestational week ≥ 37 + 0, with singleton births in cephalic presentation and spontaneous onset of labour) and 3 (parous women, gestational week ≥ 37 + 0, with singleton births in cephalic presentation, spontaneous onset of labour, and no previous caesarean birth). Crude and adjusted logistic regression models with marginal standardisation were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for oxytocin use by obstetric unit. An interaction analysis was performed to investigate the potential modifying effect of epidural. The use of oxytocin varied between 47 and 73% in Robson group 1, and 10% and 33% in Robson group 3. Compared to the remainder of Sweden, the risk of oxytocin augmentation ranged from 13% lower (RD - 13.0, 95% CI - 15.5 to - 10.6) to 14% higher (RD 14.0, 95% CI 12.3-15.8) in Robson group 1, and from 6% lower (RD - 5.6, 95% CI - 6.8 to - 4.5) to 18% higher (RD 17.9, 95% CI 16.5-19.4) in Robson group 3. The most notable differences in risk estimates were observed among women in Robson group 3 with epidural. In conclusion, variations in oxytocin use remained despite adjusting for risk factors. This indicates unjustified differences in use of oxytocin in clinical practice.
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.