| Title |
Durations of second stage of labor and pushing, and adverse neonatal outcomes: a population-based cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Perinatology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/jp.2016.214 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A Sandström, M Altman, S Cnattingius, S Johansson, M Ahlberg, O Stephansson |
| Abstract |
The associations between duration of second stage of labor, pushing time and risk of adverse neonatal outcomes are not fully established. Therefore, we aimed to examine such relationships. A population-based cohort study including 42 539 nulliparous women with singleton infants born in cephalic presentation at ⩾37 gestational weeks, using the Stockholm-Gotland Obstetric Cohort, Sweden, and the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register, 2008 to 2013. Poisson regression was used to analyze estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcome measures were umbilical artery acidosis (pH <7.05 and base excess <-12), birth asphyxia-related complications (including any of the following conditions: hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, hypothermia treatment, neonatal seizures, meconium aspiration syndrome or advanced resuscitation after birth) and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Overall rates of umbilical artery acidosis, birth asphyxia-related complications and admission to NICU were 1.08, 0.63 and 6.42%, respectively. Rate of birth asphyxia-related complications gradually increased with duration of second stage: from 0.42% at <1 h to 1.29% at ≥4 h (adjusted RR 2.46 (95% CI 1.66 to 3.66)). For admission to NICU, corresponding rates were 4.97 and 9.45%, and adjusted RR (95% CI) was 1.80 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.04). Compared with duration of pushing <15 min, a duration of pushing ⩾60 min increased rates of acidosis from 0.57 to 1.69% (adjusted RR 2.55 (95% CI 1.51 to 4.30)). Prolonged durations of second stage of labor and pushing are associated with increased RRs of adverse neonatal outcomes. Clinical assessment of fetal well-being is essential when durations of second stage and pushing increases.Journal of Perinatology advance online publication, 8 December 2016; doi:10.1038/jp.2016.214. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 174 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 52 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 61 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,118,452
of 23,642,687 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Perinatology
#94
of 2,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,329
of 423,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Perinatology
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,642,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.