Effect of different partogram action lines on birth outcomes: A randomized controlled trial

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 108, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 295-302

  Lavender, Tina ^a   Alfirevic, Zarko ^a   Walkinshaw, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS; ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; ARTICLE; BIRTH; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FETUS OUTCOME; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVENTION STUDY; LABOR; LABOR COMPLICATION; LABOR MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RECORD; MIDWIFE; OBSTETRIC CARE; PARTOGRAM; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIMIGRAVIDA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; STANDARD; TERM BIRTH; UNITED KINGDOM; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; ENGLAND; FEMALE; GRAVIDITY; HUMANS; LABOR, OBSTETRIC; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRENATAL CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE MONITORING;

EID: 33748101053     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000226862.78768.5c     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Lennox CE, Kwast BE. The partograph in community obstetrics. Trop Doct 1995;25:56-63.
2. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae II: The action line and treatment of abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1972;79:599-602.
3. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae I: the alert line for detecting abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1972;79:592-8.
4. Philpott RH. Graphic records in labour. Br Med J 1972;4:163-5.
5. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 1994;343:1399-404.
6. O'Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:485-90.
7. Turner MJ, Webb JB, Gordon H. Active management of labour in primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;7:79-83.
8. Gerhardstein LP, Allswede MT, Sloan CT, Lorenz RP. Reduction in the rate of cesarean birth with active management of labor and intermediate-dose oxytocin. J Reprod Med 1995;40:4-8.
9. Frigoletto FD, Lieberman E, Lang JM, Cohen A, Barss V, Ringer S, Datta S. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1995;333:745-50.
10. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Active management of labour: current knowledge and research issues. BMJ 1994;309:366-9.
11. Lavender T, Malcolmson L. Is the partogram a help or a hindrance? An exploratory study of midwives' views. Pract Midwife 1999;2:23-7.
12. Groeschel N, Glover P. The partograph. Used daily but rarely questioned. Aust J Midwifery 2001;14:22-7.
13. Cartmill RS, Thornton JG. Effect of presentation of partogram information on obstetric decision-making. Lancet 1992;339:1520-2.
14. Tay SK, Yong TT. Visual effect of partogram designs on the management and outcome of labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;36:395-400.
15. Pattinson RC, Howarth GR, Mdluli W, Macdonald AP, Makin JD, Funk M. Aggressive or expectant management of labour: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG 2003;110:457-61.
16. Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Partogram action line study: a randomised trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:976-80.
17. Cesarean section: National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London (UK): RCOG Press; 2004.
18. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The use of electronic fetal monitoring: the use and interpretation of cardiotocography in intrapartum fetal surveillance. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 8. London (UK): Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2001.
19. Lavender T, Wallymahmed AH, Walkinshaw SA. Managing labor using partograms with different action lines: a prospective study of women's views. Birth 1999;26:89-96.
20. Neilson JP, Lavender T, Quenby S, Wray S. Obstructed labour. Br Med Bull 2003;67:191-204.
21. Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G. Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD000015.
22. Fraser W, Vendittelli F, Krauss I, Breart G. Effects of early augmentation of labour with amniotomy and oxytocin in nulliparous women: a meta-analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:189-94.
23. Merrill DC, Zlatnik FJ. Randomized, double-masked comparison of oxytocin dosage in induction and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:455-63.
24. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86.
25. Albers LL, Schiff M, Gorwoda JG. The length of active labor in normal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:355-9.
26. National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Section Planning Committee. Criteria used for the diagnosis of dystocia. Hamilton (Canada): McMaster University; 1985.
27. Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954;68:1568-75.
28. Lavender T, Hart A, Walkinshaw S, Campbell E, Alfirevic Z. Progress of first stage of labour for multiparous women: an observational study. BJOG;112:1663-5.
29. Spencer SA, Dawson A. Implications of informed consent for obstetric research. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 2004;6:163-7.