An exploratory review on the empirical evaluation of the quality of reporting and analyzing labor duration.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_8F1A6FE4B3BB
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
An exploratory review on the empirical evaluation of the quality of reporting and analyzing labor duration.
Journal
Birth
ISSN
1523-536X (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0730-7659
Publication state
Published
Issued date
12/2024
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
51
Number
4
Pages
773-782
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Systematic Review
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
This exploratory review aimed to provide empirical evidence on the definitions of labor, the statistical approaches and measures reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies measuring the duration of labor.
A systematic electronic literature search was conducted using different databases. An extraction form was designed and used to extract relevant data. English, French, and German studies published between 1999 and 2019 have been included. Only RCTs and observational studies analyzing labor duration (or a phase of labor duration) as a primary outcome have been included.
Ninety-two RCTs and 126 observational studies were eligible. No definition of the onset of labor was provided in 21.7% (n = 20) of the RCTs and 23.8% (n = 30) of the observational studies. Mean was the most frequently applied measure of labor duration in the RCTs (89.1%, n = 82), and median in the observational studies (54.8%, n = 69). Most RCTs (83%, n = 76) and observational studies (70.6%, n = 89) analyzed labor duration using a bivariate method, with the t-test being the most frequently applied (45.7% and 27%, respectively). Only 10.8% (n = 10) of the RCTs and 52.4% (n = 66) of the observational studies conducted a multivariable regression: 3 (30%; out of 10) RCTs and 37 (56%; out of 66) observational studies used a time-to-event adapted model.
This survey reports a lack of agreement with respect to how the onset of labor and phases of labor duration are presented. Concerning the statistical approaches, few studies used survival analysis, which is the appropriate statistical framework to analyze time-to-event data.
A systematic electronic literature search was conducted using different databases. An extraction form was designed and used to extract relevant data. English, French, and German studies published between 1999 and 2019 have been included. Only RCTs and observational studies analyzing labor duration (or a phase of labor duration) as a primary outcome have been included.
Ninety-two RCTs and 126 observational studies were eligible. No definition of the onset of labor was provided in 21.7% (n = 20) of the RCTs and 23.8% (n = 30) of the observational studies. Mean was the most frequently applied measure of labor duration in the RCTs (89.1%, n = 82), and median in the observational studies (54.8%, n = 69). Most RCTs (83%, n = 76) and observational studies (70.6%, n = 89) analyzed labor duration using a bivariate method, with the t-test being the most frequently applied (45.7% and 27%, respectively). Only 10.8% (n = 10) of the RCTs and 52.4% (n = 66) of the observational studies conducted a multivariable regression: 3 (30%; out of 10) RCTs and 37 (56%; out of 66) observational studies used a time-to-event adapted model.
This survey reports a lack of agreement with respect to how the onset of labor and phases of labor duration are presented. Concerning the statistical approaches, few studies used survival analysis, which is the appropriate statistical framework to analyze time-to-event data.
Keywords
Humans, Pregnancy, Female, Labor, Obstetric, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards, Time Factors, Observational Studies as Topic, Research Design, labor duration, labor onset, midwifery, observational studies, randomized controlled studies, survival analysis
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
14/06/2024 10:26
Last modification date
20/11/2024 7:24