ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2025
Determination of the Practical Latent Phase for Term and Low-Risk Women with Premature Rupture of Membrane.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the outcomes of 12-hour versus 24-hour latent phase durations in low-risk women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM). Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 213 women with PROM at ≥37 weeks of gestation, randomized into two groups: 12-hour ( Results: The 24-hour latent phase group showed a clinically relevant but non-significant 32% reduction in cesarean section rates compared to the 12-hour group (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.73-2.38, Conclusion: Extending the latent phase to 24 hours in carefully selected PROM cases may offer a clinically meaningful reduction in cesarean sections, though this finding was not statistically significant. The approach did not increase maternal or neonatal risks. Parity-specific trends warrant further investigation.
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.