ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Observational Study on the WHO Labour Care Guide Versus the WHO Modified Partograph on Labour Outcome.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLabour is a critical physiological process requiring close monitoring to ensure optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. Traditional labour monitoring using the WHO Modified Partograph has been widely adopted; however, concerns regarding rigid time thresholds and unnecessary interventions have prompted the development of the WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG), a more individualized and woman-centred tool aligned with contemporary evidence. Comparative data between these two tools remain limited. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the WHO LCG with the WHO Modified Partograph in terms of maternal labour outcomes and caesarean section rates among primigravida women at term.
methodsThis comparative observational study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India. A total of 146 primigravida women in spontaneous labour with singleton, cephalic pregnancies at 37-40 weeks of gestation were enrolled. Participants were equally allocated to monitoring with either the WHO LCG (n = 73) or the WHO Modified Partograph (n = 73). Maternal labour parameters, mode of delivery, hospital stay, and neonatal outcomes were recorded.
resultsWomen monitored using the WHO LCG had significantly shorter durations of the active phase and the second stage of labour and a markedly lower caesarean section rate compared with those monitored using the Modified Partograph (p < 0.001). Vaginal delivery rates were significantly higher, and hospital stays were shorter in the LCG group. Neonatal outcomes, including APGAR (appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiration) scores, birth weight, NICU admissions, and NICU stay duration, were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionThe WHO LCG is a more effective intrapartum monitoring tool than the WHO Modified Partograph, improving maternal labour outcomes without compromising neonatal safety. Its adoption may enhance labour efficiency, reduce unnecessary caesarean deliveries, and support woman-centred obstetric care.
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.