Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Should we restrict food intake during labor? A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oral intake management in laboring women: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
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
purposeTo evaluate whether consuming food during labor influences its outcomes.
methodsThis randomized controlled study included healthy, laboring patients at 37-41 weeks of gestation. After epidural anesthesia, patients were randomized into groups of eating at will versus drinking clear fluids only. The primary composite outcome included unplanned cesarean delivery, the need for general anesthesia, asphyxia, postpartum fever, and prolonged postpartum admission (more than 5 days). Secondary outcomes included the need for oxytocin, length of the second stage of labor, postpartum analgesia requirements, and early maternal and neonatal outcomes. Sample size analysis indicated that 126 patients needed to be randomized to detect a statistically significance difference between the groups.
resultsA total of 129 patients were randomized: 58 to the fluids-only group and 71 to the food group. The groups had similar basic characteristics. The composite outcome of complications attributed to eating during labor and delivery was comparable between groups. Labor progression and the need for oxytocin augmentation were similar in both groups. The groups had comparable fetal heart rate tracings, modes of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and complications. None of the patients in the study experienced aspiration or an indication for general anesthesia.
conclusionWhile our data suggest that eating during labor does not adversely affect labor progression or outcomes, we recommend a cautious approach, allowing patients autonomy while considering individual risk factors.
trial registrationThe study has been registered in the primary clinical trial registry on 02/12/2023. ISRCTN trial number ISRCTN11794106, registration number 44513. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11794106 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39535555What 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.