Literature DB >> 25891997

Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve.

Jun Zhang1, James Troendle2, Katherine L Grantz3, Uma M Reddy3.   

Abstract

In a recent review by Cohen and Friedman, several statistical questions on modeling labor curves were raised. This article illustrates that asking data to fit a preconceived model or letting a sufficiently flexible model fit observed data is the main difference in principles of statistical modeling between the original Friedman curve and our average labor curve. An evidence-based approach to construct a labor curve and establish normal values should allow the statistical model to fit observed data. In addition, the presence of the deceleration phase in the active phase of an average labor curve was questioned. Forcing a deceleration phase to be part of the labor curve may have artificially raised the speed of progression in the active phase with a particularly large impact on earlier labor between 4 and 6 cm. Finally, any labor curve is illustrative and may not be instructive in managing labor because of variations in individual labor pattern and large errors in measuring cervical dilation. With the tools commonly available, it may be more productive to establish a new partogram that takes the physiology of labor and contemporary obstetric population into account.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Friedman curve; deceleration phase; labor curve; modeling; partogram

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25891997     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  6 in total

1.  The transition from latent to active labor and adverse obstetrical outcomes.

Authors:  Joshua I Rosenbloom; Candice L Woolfolk; Leping Wan; Molly J Stout; Methodius G Tuuli; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns.

Authors:  Joshua I Rosenbloom; Molly J Stout; Methodius G Tuuli; Candice L Woolfolk; Julia D López; George A Macones; Alison G Cahill
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-10-14       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Influence of the second stage of labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes in vaginal births after caesarean section: a multicenter study in Germany.

Authors:  G Gitas; L Proppe; A K Ertan; S Baum; A Rody; M Kocaer; K Dinas; L Allahqoli; A S Laganà; A Sotiriadis; S Sommer; I Alkatout
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Impact of labor characteristics on maternal and neonatal outcomes of labor: A machine-learning model.

Authors:  Sherif A Shazly; Bijan J Borah; Che G Ngufor; Vanessa E Torbenson; Regan N Theiler; Abimbola O Famuyide
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Progression of the first stage of spontaneous labour: A prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries.

Authors:  Olufemi T Oladapo; Joao Paulo Souza; Bukola Fawole; Kidza Mugerwa; Gleici Perdoná; Domingos Alves; Hayala Souza; Rodrigo Reis; Livia Oliveira-Ciabati; Alexandre Maiorano; Adesina Akintan; Francis E Alu; Lawal Oyeneyin; Amos Adebayo; Josaphat Byamugisha; Miriam Nakalembe; Hadiza A Idris; Ola Okike; Fernando Althabe; Vanora Hundley; France Donnay; Robert Pattinson; Harshadkumar C Sanghvi; Jen E Jardine; Özge Tunçalp; Joshua P Vogel; Mary Ellen Stanton; Meghan Bohren; Jun Zhang; Tina Lavender; Jerker Liljestrand; Petra Ten Hoope-Bender; Matthews Mathai; Rajiv Bahl; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  The impact of stage of labor on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Li Wang; Hongxia Wang; Lu Jia; Wenjie Qing; Fan Li; Jie Zhou
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.