SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Clinical Practice Guidelines on Normal Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines on Normal Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are essential for promoting evidence-based maternal and neonatal care, but inconsistencies in recommendations can be confusing.
objectivesTo analyse the quality and reporting of international CPGs for normal birth and summarise the recommendations. SEARCH STRATEGY: Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021269488), the study identified CPGs on normal birth through systematic searches in databases like MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus and WOS, along with direct outreach to international organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: CPGs published from 2010 to December 2024 were included, with no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The quality and reporting of CPGs were evaluated using the AGREE II and RIGHT tools, and recommendations were summarised. MAIN
resultsOf the 25 CPGs analysed, the median AGREE II quality score was 54%, and the median RIGHT reporting score was 50%. The highest scores were from WHO (2018), CINETS (2013) and the Spanish normal childbirth CPG (2010). Notably, 56% of CPGs had poor reporting, while only 8% were adequately informed. Common recommendations included the presence of support persons, avoiding routine interventions (e.g., enemas, shaving), encouraging fluid intake, allowing movement during labour and promoting skin-to-skin contact.
conclusionsMost CPGs on normal childbirth are outdated and exhibit poor quality and reporting. There is a pressing need for improvements to ensure valid, consistent and updated recommendations that enhance maternal and neonatal health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.