Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2008 Oct 8:(4):CD004907.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004907.pub2.

Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women

Heather C Brown  1 , Shantini Paranjothy, Therese Dowswell, Jane Thomas
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women

Heather C Brown et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Approximately 15% of women have caesarean sections (CS) and while the rate varies, the number is increasing in many countries. This is of concern because higher CS rates do not confer additional health gain but may adversely affect maternal health and have implications for future pregnancies. Active management of labour has been proposed as a means of reducing CS rates. This refers to a package of care including strict diagnosis of labour, routine amniotomy, oxytocin for slow progress and one to one support in labour.

Objectives: To determine whether active management of labour reduces CS rates in low-risk women and improves satisfaction.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007), MIDIRS (1985 to 2007) and CINAHL (1982 to 2007).

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing low-risk women receiving a predefined package of care (active management) with women receiving routine (variable) care. Trials where slow progress had been diagnosed before entry into the trial were excluded.

Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors extracted data. We assessed included studies for risk of bias.

Main results: We included seven trials, with a total of 5390 women. The quality of studies was mixed. The CS rate was slightly lower in the active management group compared to the group that received routine care, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). However, in one study there was a large number of post-randomisation exclusions. On excluding this study, CS rates in the active management group were statistically significantly lower than in the routine care group (RR 0.77 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94). More women in the active management group had labours lasting less than twelve hours, but there was wide variation in length of labour within and between trials. There were no differences between groups in use of analgesia, rates of assisted vaginal deliveries or maternal or neonatal complications. Only one trial examined maternal satisfaction; the majority of women (over 75%) in both groups were very satisfied with care.

Authors' conclusions: Active management is associated with small reductions in the CS rate, but it is highly prescriptive and interventional. It is possible that some components of the active management package are more effective than others. Further work is required to determine the acceptability of active management to women in labour.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Cammu H, Van Eeckhout E. A randomised controlled trial of early vs delayed use of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion in nulliparous labor. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1996;103:313–8. - PubMed
    1. Frigoletto FD, Lieberman E, Lang JM, Cohen A, Barss V, Ringer S, et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;333:745–50. - PubMed
    1. Lopez-Zeno JA, Peaceman AM, Adashek JA, Socol ML. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. New England Journal of Medicine. 1992;326:450–4. - PubMed

    2. *

    1. Lopez-Zeno JA, Peaceman AM, Socol ML. Active management of labor (AMOL) - an evaluation of its efficacy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1991;164:306.
    1. Rogers R, Gilson G, Kammerer-Doak D. Epidural analgesia and active management of labor: effects on length of labor and mode of delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;93(6):995–8. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Cohen GR, O’Brien WF, Lewis L, Knuppel RA. A prospective randomized study of the aggressive management of early labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1987;157:1174–7. - PubMed
    1. Hinshaw K. [accessed 2005];Oxytocin augmentation in the management of primary dysfunctional labour in nulliparous women - effect on caesarean section rate: a randomised controlled trial. The Research Findings Register. Summary number 1244. Retrieved 11 January 2005, from http://www.ReFeR.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.asp?ID=1244.
    1. Hinshaw K, Moustafa A, Wilson K, Boyd P, Fawzi H, Kumarendran K. Oxytocin augmentation versus conservative management for primary dysfunctional labour in nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial. 27th British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Dublin, Ireland. 1995; Jul 4-7, p. 207. 1995.

    2. *

    1. Hogston P, Noble W. Active management of labour - the Portsmouth experience. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1993;13:340–2.
    1. Jyoti M, Singhal P, Choudhary D, Programed labor Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India. 2006;56(1):53–5.

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Abo Omar A. Active versus more selective management of labor. Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society. 2001;13(3):139–42.

Additional references

    1. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 2007;21(2):98–113. - PubMed
    1. Bidgood KA, Steer PJ. A randomised control study of oxytocin augmentation of labour. 1. Obstetric outcome. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1987;94(6):512–7. - PubMed
    1. Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG. Oxytocin versus placebo or no treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008;(2) Art. No.: CD007123. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007123. - PubMed
    1. Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G. Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour (Cochrane Review) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003;(Issue 2) Art. No.: CD000015. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000015.pub2. - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.0 [updated February 2008] In: The Cochrane Library. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; Chichester, UK: 2008.