Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42428975›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2026

Potential benefits of applying the GebStart-tool for advising primiparous women during early labor: A comparative study.

Susanne Grylka-Baeschlin, Nadine Pauli, Catherine Rapp, Carola Baumgarnter, Clizia Iseppi, Nele Struebing, Linda Karg, Gabriela Minati, Leonhard Schaeffer, Olav Lapaire and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Susanne Grylka-BaeschlinResearch Institute of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Nadine PauliDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Diagnostics, Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Catherine RappWomen's Clinic, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Carola BaumgarnterResearch Institute of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Clizia IseppiGynaecology and Maternite, Stadtspital Zurich Triemli, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nele StruebingDepartment of Obstetrics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Linda KargDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Diagnostics, Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Gabriela MinatiDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Diagnostics, Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Leonhard SchaefferDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Diagnostics, Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Olav LapaireWomen's Clinic, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Markus HodelWomen's Hospital, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Gabriella StockerGynaecology and Maternite, Stadtspital Zurich Triemli, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nina KimmichDepartment of Obstetrics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Leila Sultan-BeyerDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Diagnostics, Cantonal Hospital, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Antonia Nathalie MuellerResearch Institute of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Health Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEarly labor care is complex because of women's individual needs. To consider varying experiences and distinguish between parturients who are well at home and those who require increased support, the GebStart-tool was developed. It intends to advise primiparous women during early labor, enhance the quality of care, and improve perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the potential benefits and risks of applying the GebStart-tool.

methodsApplying the preliminary version of the GebStart-tool, we compared labor and birth data from n=303 study participants with spontaneous onset of labor with baseline data of n=1635 births that occurred in the six months preceding the study across six centers. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios were calculated.

resultsGebStart-study participants had significantly lower odds for labor augmentation with oxytocin (OR=0.65; 95% CI: 0.51-0.84, p<0.001), epidural analgesia (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.43-0.72, p<0.001), and cesarean section (OR=0.52; 95% CI: 0.36-0.76, p<0.001) compared to baseline data. In contrast, the odds for opioid administration (OR=1.37; 95% CI: 1.02-1.83, p=0.028) and a spontaneous vaginal birth (OR=1.33; 95% CI: 1.02-1.72, p=0.028) were significantly higher. Apgar scores at one minute and arterial umbilical cord pH did not differ substantially between groups.

conclusionsCompared to baseline data, GebStart-study participants had a higher chance of fewer intrapartal interventions and a spontaneous vaginal birth. Therefore, using the GebStart-tool seems promising for improving labor and birth outcomes. In a future larger study, the effectiveness of applying the final version of the GebStart-tool should be investigated.

Indexed as

birthcaesarean section instrument developmentlatent phase of laborobstetric outcomes

Identifiers

PMID42428975
PMCPMC13347223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.