↓ Skip to main content

Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005461.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tina Lavender, Anna Cuthbert, Rebecca MD Smyth

Abstract

The partograph (sometimes known as partogram) is usually a pre-printed paper form on which labour observations are recorded. The aim of the partograph is to provide a pictorial overview of labour, and to alert midwives and obstetricians to deviations in maternal or fetal well-being and labour progress. Charts have traditionally contained pre-printed alert and action lines. An alert line, which is based on the slowest 10% of primigravid women's labours, signifies slow progress. An action line is placed a number of hours after the alert line (usually two or four hours) to prompt effective management of slow progress of labour.This review is an update of a review last published in 2013. The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of partograph use on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The secondary objective was to determine which partograph design is most effective for perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality outcomes. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised, cluster-randomised, and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of partograph use with no partograph, or comparison between different partograph designs. Three review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. When one review author was also the trial author, the two remaining review authors assessed the studies independently. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach. We have included 11 studies, involving 9475 women in this review; three studies assessed partograph use versus no partograph, seven assessed different partograph designs, and one assessed partograph use versus labour scale. Risk of bias varied in all studies. It was infeasible to blind staff or women to the intervention. Two studies did not adequately conceal allocation. Loss to follow-up was low in all studies. We assessed the evidence for partograph use versus no partograph using the GRADE approach; downgrading decisions were due to study design, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision of effect estimates.Most trials reported caesarean section rates and Apgar scores less than 7 at five minutes; all other outcomes were not consistently reported (e.g. duration of first stage of labour and maternal experience of childbirth).Partograph versus no partograph (3 trials, 1813 women)It is uncertain whether there is any clear difference between partograph use and no partograph in caesarean section rates (average risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.46; n = 1813; 3 trials; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence); oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1156; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence); duration of first stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 0.80 hours, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.66; n = 1156; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); or Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.03; n = 1596; 2 trials; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence).Partograph with different placement of action lines (4 trials, 5051 women)When compared to a four-hour action line, women in the two-hour action line group were more likely to receive oxytocin augmentation (average RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.35; n = 4749; 4 trials; I² = 96%). There was no clear difference in caesarean section rates (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28; n = 4749; 4 trials); duration of first stage of labour (RR 0.81 hours, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.04; n = 948; 1 trial); maternal experience of childbirth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.35; n = 2269; 2 trials; I² = 83%); or Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; n = 4749; 4 trials) between the two- and four-hour action line.The following comparisons only include data from single studies. Fewer women reported negative childbirth experiences in the two-hour action line group compared to the three-hour action line group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; n = 348; 1 trial). When we compared the three- and four-hour action line groups, the caesarean section rate was higher in the three-hour action line group (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.70; n = 613; 1 trial). We did not observe any clear differences in any of the other outcomes in these comparisons.Partograph with alert line only versus partograph with alert and action line (1 trial, 694 women)The caesarean section rate was lower in the alert line only group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). There were no clear differences between groups for oxytocin augmentation, low Apgar score, instrumental vaginal birth and perinatal death.Partograph with latent phase (composite) versus partograph without latent phase (modified) (1 trial, 743 women)The caesarean section and oxytocin augmentation rates were higher in the partograph with a latent phase (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50; and RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.83, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for oxytocin augmentation, and Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes.Partograph with two-hour action line versus partograph with stepped dystocia line (1 trial, 99 women)Fewer women received oxytocin augmentation in the dystocia line group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98). We did not observe any clear differences in any of the other primary outcomes in this comparison.Partograph versus labour scale (1 trial, 122 women)The use of the partograph compared with the labour scale resulted in fewer women receiving oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54), but did not produce any clear differences for any of the other primary outcomes. On the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot be certain of the effects of routine use of the partograph as part of standard labour management and care, or which design, if any, are most effective. Further trial evidence is required to establish the efficacy of partograph use per se and its optimum design.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 23 28%
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Other 5 6%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 34%
Unspecified 24 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2018.
All research outputs
#889,289
of 13,118,813 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,812
of 10,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,984
of 268,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,118,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.