Skip to content

Labor Scale Versus WHO Partograph in the Management of Labor

The Management of Spontaneous Labour in Primigravida (SLiP): Labor Scale Versus WHO Partograph

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02486822
Acronym
SLiP
Enrollment
120
Registered
2015-07-01
Start date
2015-07-31
Completion date
2016-06-30
Last updated
2016-05-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dystocia

Keywords

Labor scale, Partograph, Spontaneous labor, Primigravida

Brief summary

This study aims to compare the novel labour scale with the traditional WHO partograph in the management of spontaneous labour in primigravida in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes

Detailed description

After many centuries through which vaginal delivery (VD) had been the only safe route of birth, Cesarean section (CS) emerged as an alternative in emergency situations. CS has gradually become an appealing option for both the mother and the obstetrician and its indications increase while CS was proving safety; the rate of CS in U.S.A increased by about 50% within 10 years around the beginning of the current century. However, the increasing prevalence of CS raises questions about the impact of this trend on maternal morbidity, mortality as well as its economic burden. Accordingly, recent guidelines have been directed to revise practice-base CS indications to only situations when CS is truly beneficial to the mother and/or the fetus. Of these indications, the most reported one was labour dystocia. The WHO partograph is a famous chart that is commonly used to observe uncomplicated labour and is almost an objective approach to guide interference. Unfortunately, the rule of the partograph in reducing the incidence of CS is questionable. Furthermore, the design of the partograph is not exactly perfect to present the process of labour. For these reasons, the labour scale was designed as a novel follow-up chart during labour. The chart considered more objective and timed management of labour with more flexible range of time based on recent evidence. A previous pilot study on 77 women suggested that the labour scale may be a good alternative to the current partograph. This study is the first randomized trial the compares the 2 charts as regards the rate of CS, maternal and neonatal health outcomes and both patient and obstetrician satisfaction. In this clinical trial, the investigators aim to compare the labour scale to the traditional WHO partograph in terms of incidence of labor dystocia and CS as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes

Interventions

PROCEDUREAmniotomy

Amniotomy, artificial rupture of membranes, is done with initial delay of labor (in partograph: extension beyond alert line, in labor scale: when progress reaches the membrane line)

DRUGOxytocin

Oxytocin augmentation: given with further delay of labour (according to the point of intervention of the partograph or the scale)

PROCEDURECesarean Section

Cesarean section: done when progress is deemed arrested (according to the definition of the partograph or the scale)

Sponsors

Assiut University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Primigravida * 38 - 42 weeks of gestation * Singleton pregnancy * Vertex presentation * Spontaneous labour * Average estimated fetal weight (2500 - 3800 gram)

Exclusion criteria

* Maternal medical or surgical major co-morbidity * Previous uterine scar * Induction of labor * Premature rupture of membranes

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Successful vaginal delivery (reporting of whether labor ends in vaginal delivery or Cesarean Section. In case of CS, the indication will be reported)Time of labor (maximum 24 hours)The proportion who delivered vaginal versus those indicated for Cesarean Section for labor dystocia

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Intrapartum maternal birth injuries (assessed clinically at the time of labor, the extent and type of repair and subsequent complications will be reported)Time of labour and hospital stay (expected average 72 hours)
Primary postpartum hemorrhage evaluated by clinical signs, blood loss in mL, hemoglobin and interventionsThe length of hospital stay (expected average 72 hours)
Maternal fever/postpartum infections as evaluated temperature, WBC count, CRP and cultureThe length of hospital stay (expected average 72 hours)
Intrapartum maternal distress (assessed by clinical signs of maternal distress and dehydration)Time of labor (maximum 24 hours)
birth injuries of the newborn (as reported by physical examination, documentation of birth injuries, and subsequent management )The length of hospital stay (expected average 1 week)
Neonatal distress asphyxia (as reported 1 & 5 minutes APGAR score, resuscitation event, umbilical artery pH, admission to NICU, length of stay and any further medical complications)The length of hospital/NICU stay (expected average 1 week)
Intrapartum fetal distress as diagnosed by fetal auscultation and electronic fetal monitoringDuration of labor (maximum 24 hours)

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026