Dataset Information

Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Despite decades of research, the concept of normality in labour in terms of its progression and duration is not universal or standardized. However, in clinical practice, it is important to define the boundaries that distinguish what is normal from what is abnormal to enable women and care providers have a shared understanding of what to expect and when labour interventions are justified.To synthesise available evidence on the duration of latent and active first stage and the second stage of spontaneous labour in women at low risk of complications with 'normal' perinatal outcomes.PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, Global Health Library, and reference lists of eligible studies.Observational studies and other study designs.Four authors extracted data on: maternal characteristics; labour interventions; duration of latent first stage, active first stage, and second stage of labour; and the definitions of onset of latent and active first stage, and second stage where reported. Heterogeneity in the included studies precluded meta-analysis and data were presented descriptively.Thirty-seven studies reporting the duration of first and/or second stages of labour for 208,000 women met our inclusion criteria. Among nulliparous women, the median duration of active first stage (when the starting reference point was 4?cm) ranged from 3.7-5.9?h (95th percentiles: 14.5-16.7?h). With active phase starting from 5?cm, the median duration was from 3.8-4.3?h (95th percentiles: 11.3-12.7?h). The median duration of second stage ranged from 14 to 66?min (95th percentiles: 65-138?min) and from 6 to 12?min (95th percentiles: 58-76?min) in nulliparous and parous women, respectively. Sensitivity analyses excluding first and second stage interventions did not significantly impact on these findings CONCLUSIONS: The duration of spontaneous labour in women with good perinatal outcomes varies from one woman to another. Some women may experience labour for longer than previously thought, and still achieve a vaginal birth without adverse perinatal outcomes. Our findings question the rigid limits currently applied in clinical practice for the assessment of prolonged first or second stage that warrant obstetric intervention.

SUBMITTER: Abalos E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5884320 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.

Abalos Edgardo E Oladapo Olufemi T OT Chamillard Mónica M Díaz Virginia V Pasquale Julia J Bonet Mercedes M Souza Joao Paulo JP Gülmezoglu A Metin AM

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 20180227

<h4>Background</h4>Despite decades of research, the concept of normality in labour in terms of its progression and duration is not universal or standardized. However, in clinical practice, it is important to define the boundaries that distinguish what is normal from what is abnormal to enable women and care providers have a shared understanding of what to expect and when labour interventions are justified.<h4>Objectives</h4>To synthesise available evidence on the duration of latent and active fi ...[more]

PMID: 29518643

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe call for women-centred approaches to reduce labour interventions, particularly primary caesarean section, has renewed an interest in gaining a better understanding of natural labour progression.ObjectiveTo synthesise available data on the cervical dilatation patterns during spontaneous labour of 'low-risk' women with normal perinatal outcomes.Search strategyPubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, POPLINE, Global Health Library, and reference lists of eligible studies.Selection criteriaObservational studies and other study designs.Data collection and analysisTwo authors extracted data on: maternal characteristics; labour interventions; the duration of labour centimetre by centimetre; and the duration of labour from dilatation at admission through to 10 cm. We pooled data across studies using weighted medians and employed the Bootstrap-t method to generate the corresponding confidence bounds.Main resultsSeven observational studies describing labour patterns for 99 971 women met our inclusion criteria. The median time to advance by 1 cm in nulliparous women was longer than 1 hour until a dilatation of 5 cm was reached, with markedly rapid progress after 6 cm. Similar labour progression patterns were observed in parous women. The 95th percentiles for both parity groups suggest that it was not uncommon for some women to reach 10 cm, despite dilatation rates that were much slower than the 1-cm/hour threshold for most part of their first stage of labours.ConclusionAn expectation of a minimum cervical dilatation threshold of 1 cm/hour throughout the first stage of labour is unrealistic for most healthy nulliparous and parous women. Our findings call into question the universal application of clinical standards that are conceptually based on an expectation of linear labour progress in all women.FundingUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).Tweetable abstractCervical dilatation threshold of 1 cm/hour throughout labour is unrealistic for most women, regardless of parity.

Project description:BackgroundProlonged second stage of labour has been associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. The maximum length of the second stage from full dilatation to birth of the baby remains controversial. Our aim was to determine whether extending second stage of labour was associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using routinely collected hospital data from 51592 births in Aberdeen Maternity Hospital between 2000 and 2016. The hospital followed the local guidance of allowing second stage of labour to extend by an hour compared to national guidelines since 2008 (nulliparous and parous). The increasing duration of second stage of labour was the exposure. Baseline characteristics, maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared between women who had a second stage labour of (a) ≤ 3 h and (b) > 3 h duration for nulliparous women; and (a) ≤ 2 h or (b) > 2 h for parous women. An additional model was run that treated the duration of second stage of labour as a continuous variable (measured in hours). All the adjusted models accounted for: age, BMI, smoking status, deprivation category, induced birth, epidural, oxytocin, gestational age, baby birthweight, mode of birth and parity (only for the final model).ResultsEach hourly increase in the second stage of labour was associated with an increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury (aOR 1.21 95% CI 1.16,1.25), having an episiotomy (aOR 1.48 95% CI 1.45, 1.52) and postpartum haemorrhage (aOR 1.27 95% CI 1.25, 1.30). The rates of caesarean and forceps delivery also increased when second stage duration increased (aOR 2.60 95% CI 2.50, 2.70, and aOR 2.44 95% CI 2.38, 2.51, respectively.) Overall adverse perinatal outcomes were not found to change significantly with duration of second stage on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsAs the duration of second stage of labour increased each hour, the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries, episiotomies and PPH increases significantly. Women were over 2 times more likely to have a forceps or caesarean birth. The association between adverse perinatal outcomes and the duration of second stage of labour was less convincing in this study.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature on housing instability during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes and perinatal healthcare utilization.Data sourcesWe performed a systematic search in November 2020 using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus using terms related to housing instability during pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and perinatal healthcare utilization. The search was limited to the United States.Study eligibility criteriaStudies examining housing instability (including homelessness) during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes (including preterm birth, low birthweight neonates, and maternal morbidity) and perinatal healthcare utilization were included.MethodsTwo authors screened abstracts and full-length articles for inclusion. The final cohort consisted of 14 studies. Two authors independently extracted data from each article and assessed the study quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools.ResultsAll included studies were observational, including retrospective cohort (n=10, 71.4%), cross-sectional observational (n=3, 21.4%), or prospective cohort studies (n=1, 7.1%). There was significant heterogeneity in the definitions of housing instability and homelessness. Most of the studies only examined homelessness (n=9, 64.3%) and not lesser degrees of housing instability. Housing instability and homelessness during pregnancy were significantly associated with preterm birth, low birthweight neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and delivery complications. Among studies examining perinatal healthcare utilization, housing instability was associated with inadequate prenatal care and increased hospital utilization. All studies exhibited moderate, low, or very low study quality and fair or poor internal validity.ConclusionAlthough data on housing instability during pregnancy are limited by the lack of a standardized definition, a consistent relationship between housing instability and adverse pregnancy outcomes has been suggested by this systematic review. The evaluation and development of a standardized definition and measurement of housing instability among pregnant individuals is warranted to address future interventions targeted to housing instability during pregnancy.

Project description:Background Maternal HIV infection is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends immediate initiation of lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all people living with HIV, including pregnant women living with HIV (WLHIV). We aimed to assess the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in WLHIV receiving ART compared to ART-naïve WLHIV and HIV-negative women. Materials and methods We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, and EMBASE for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and April 20, 2020. Two investigators independently selected relevant studies and extracted data from studies reporting on the association of pregnant WLHIV receiving ART with adverse perinatal outcomes. Perinatal outcomes examined were preterm birth (PTB), very PTB, spontaneous PTB (sPTB), low birth weight (LBW), very LBW (VLBW), term LBW, preterm LBW, small for gestational age (SGA), very SGA (VSGA), stillbirth, and neonatal death. Random-effects meta-analyses examined the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in WLHIV receiving ART compared to ART-naïve WLHIV and HIV-negative women. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on country income status and study quality, and adjustment for confounding factors assessed. Results Of 94,594 studies identified, 73 cohort studies, including 424,277 pregnant women, met the inclusion criteria. We found that WLHIV receiving ART are associated with a significantly decreased risk of PTB (relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.67–0.93), sPTB (0.46, 0.32–0.66), LBW (0.86, 0.79–0.93), and VLBW (0.62, 0.39–0.97) compared to ART-naïve WLHIV. However, WLHIV receiving ART are associated with a significantly increased risk of PTB (1.42, 1.28–1.57), sPTB (2.20, 1.32–3.67), LBW (1.58, 1.36–1.84), term LBW (1.88, 1.23–2.85), SGA (1.69, 1.32–2.17), and VSGA (1.22, 1.10–1.34) compared to HIV-negative women. Conclusion ART reduces the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant WLHIV, but the risk remains higher than in HIV-negative women. Our findings support the WHO recommendation of immediate initiation of lifelong ART for all people living with HIV, including pregnant WLHIV. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021248987.

Project description:Background:More women are choosing to birth at home in well-resourced countries. Concerns persist that out-of-hospital birth contributes to higher perinatal and neonatal mortality. This systematic review and meta-analyses determines if risk of fetal or neonatal loss differs among low-risk women who begin labour intending to give birth at home compared to low-risk women intending to give birth in hospital. Methods:In April 2018 we searched five databases from 1990 onward and used R to obtain pooled estimates of effect. We stratified by study design, study settings and parity. The primary outcome is any perinatal or neonatal death after the onset of labour. The study protocol is peer-reviewed, published and registered (PROSPERO No.CRD42013004046). Findings:We identified 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis including ~ 500,000 intended home births. Among nulliparous women intending a home birth in settings where midwives attending home birth are well-integrated in health services, the odds ratio (OR) of perinatal or neonatal mortality compared to those intending hospital birth was 1.07 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65); and in less integrated settings 3.17 (95% CI, 0.73 to 13.76). Among multiparous women intending a home birth in well-integrated settings, the estimated OR compared to those intending a hospital birth was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.38); and in less integrated settings was 1.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 5.03). Interpretation:The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital. Funding:Partial funding: Association of Ontario Midwives open peer reviewed grant. Research in Context:Evidence before this study Although there is increasing acceptance for intended home birth as a choice for birthing women, controversy about its safety persists. The varying responses of obstetrical societies to intended home birth provide evidence of contrasting views. A Cochrane review of randomised controlled trials addressing this topic included one small trial and noted that in the absence of adequately sized randomised controlled trials on the topic of intended home compared to intended hospital birth, a peer reviewed protocol be published to guide a systematic review and meta-analysis including observational studies. Reviews to date have been limited by design or methodological issues and none has used a protocol published a priori.Added value of this study Individual studies are underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences in rare outcomes. This study uses a published peer-reviewed protocol and is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis comparing outcomes of intended home and hospital birth. We take study design, parity and jurisdictional support for home birth into account. Our study provides much needed information to policy makers, care providers and women and families when planning for birth.Implications of all the available evidence Women who are low risk and who intend to give birth at home do not appear to have a different risk of fetal or neonatal loss compared to a population of similarly low risk women intending to give birth in hospital.

Dataset Information

Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.

Publications

Duration of spontaneous labour in 'low-risk' women with 'normal' perinatal outcomes: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets