ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of the WHO Labour Care Guide Versus a Modified Partograph for Maternal and Foetal Outcomes at a Rural Care Centre: A Preventive Controlled Trial.
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
Objective This study aimed to compare the WHO Labour Care Guide (WLCG) with the Modified Partograph concerning maternal and foetal outcomes in a rural healthcare setting. Methods A prospective comparative study was conducted on 100 labouring women admitted to a rural maternity centre. Of these, 50 women were managed using the WLCG, while the other 50 were managed using the Modified Partograph. Data on demographic characteristics, labour progression, maternal outcomes, and foetal outcomes were collected and statistically analysed. Results The demographic characteristics, including age (p = 0.586), parity (p = 0.294), socioeconomic status (p = 0.158), and mode of labour onset (p = 0.680), showed no significant differences between the two groups. The duration of the second stage of labour was significantly shorter in the WLCG group (14.83 ± 7.78 minutes) compared to the Modified Partograph group (21.73 ± 10.53 minutes, p = 0.001). No significant difference was noted in the duration of the active stage (p = 0.075) or mode of delivery (p = 0.295). A significantly higher percentage of women reported a better birth experience in the WLCG group (p < 0.001). The causes of intervention (p = 0.743), APGAR scores (p = 0.907), neonatal mortality (p = 0.603), and maternal complications (p = 0.419) were comparable. However, NICU admissions were significantly lower in the WLCG group (30% vs. 52%, p = 0.025). Conclusion The WLCG demonstrated advantages in reducing the second stage of labour duration, improving women's birth experiences, and lowering NICU admission rates compared to the Modified Partograph, without compromising maternal and foetal safety. This suggests the potential benefits of adopting WLCG in rural obstetric care settings.
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.