ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT05341076ScaLPUpdated Apr 22, 2022

Labor Scale Versus WHO Partograph for Management of Labor (ScaLP)

An interventional study of Amniotomy and Oxytocin in Dystocia, sponsored by Assiut University. Status unknown at 1 site in Egypt. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 45 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-04-22.

Sponsored by Assiut University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Apr 2022), so the status shown — last known as Not yet recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
206
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 45 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

The current study aims at evaluating the impact of the implementation of the labor scale, in comparison to the standard WHO partograph, in the management of primiparous women, including CD rate, maternal and neonatal outcomes of labor.

Read the detailed description

Since the procedure was first introduced to clinical practice, Cesarean delivery (CD) has significantly contributed to peripartum maternal and fetal safety when appropriately indicated. Nevertheless, CD rate has significantly increased over the last two decades without parallel improvement in maternal or neonatal outcomes. Globally, one out of three pregnancies would be delivered by CD, resulting in growing surgical, obstetric and financial burden. Over years, long-term sequelae of current CD rate have become evident such as increased incidence of placenta accreta spectrum and exponential rise in CD trend, since 90% of women who had CD are susceptible to CD in future pregnancies. These concerns have triggered a global act to control CD rates within the margins of safe obstetric practice.

The most common indication of CD is labor dystocia. However, the definition of labor dystocia is inconsistent, and standardization of diagnosis has been heavily investigated. The WHO partograph was established at the end of the last century to serve as a tool to recognize labor dystocia and has been universally accepted to verify CD decision However, a cochrane review by Lavender et al. revealed that role of WHO partograph, in improving clinical outcomes, is lacking. In addition, there is no evidence that any published modification of the current partograph is superior to another. The "labor scale," a novel alternative to the classic partograph, was first introduced to literature in 2014. The tool was designed based on evidence-based guidelines and integrates both diagnosis and interventions to manage labor dystocia. Initial data showed that labor scale contributed to decreased incidence of CD and oxytocin administration. However, further studies are required to verify these results.

02

Conditions studied

  • Dystocia

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Labor scale
  • Partograph
  • Spontaneous labor
  • Primigravida
03

In context

Dystocia

55 studies on the registry are indexed under Dystocia; 12 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 206 is close to the median of 200 across 42 interventional studies indexed under Dystocia.

Browse Dystocia studies →

Lead sponsor

Assiut University is the lead sponsor of 5,078 studies on the registry; 2,178 are open to participants now.

Of its 14 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 45 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria Pregnant women aged 18 to 45 years old with the following criteria: nulliparous, had been pregnant for 37 to 41 weeks with a singleton viable fetus, and vertex presented, and with estimated fetal weights between 2,500 and 4,500 g.

Exclusion Criteria Women with following criteria will be excluded: significant maternal medical or surgical comorbidity, previous uterine scar

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
206 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Labor scale

    Observation Amniotomy Oxytocin Cesarean Section (CS)

    Procedure: Amniotomy · Drug: Oxytocin · Procedure: Cesarean Section

  • Active comparator
    WHO partograph

    Observation Amniotomy Oxytocin Cesarean Section (CS)

    Procedure: Amniotomy · Drug: Oxytocin · Procedure: Cesarean Section

Interventions

  • ProcedureAmniotomy

    Amniotomy, artificial rupture of membranes, is done with an initial delay of labor (in partograph: extension beyond the alert line, in labor scale: when progress reaches the membrane line)

    Also known as: Artificial rupture of membranes

  • oxytocin augmentation: given with further delay of labor (according to the point of intervention of the partograph or the scale)

    Also known as: augmentation of labor

  • ProcedureCesarean Section

    Cesarean section: done when progress is deemed arrested (according to the definition of the partograph or the scale)

    Also known as: CS

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Successful vaginal delivery (reporting of whether labor ends in vaginal delivery or Cesarean Section. In case of CS, the indication will be reported)

    The proportion who delivered vaginal versus those indicated for Cesarean Section for labor dystocia

    Time frame: Duration of labor (maximum 24 hours from onset of labor)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Intrapartum maternal birth injuries

    This is assessed clinically at the time of labor, and includes the extent of vaginal and perineal traumas and type of repair

    Time frame: Duration of labour and hospital stay (anticipated duration: 72 hours)

  2. Primary postpartum hemorrhage

    Primary postpartum hemorrhage is defined as estimated blood loss \> 500 ml following delivery and within 24 hours postpartum

    Time frame: Within 24 hours of delivery

  3. Maternal fever/postpartum infections

    This is indicated by a single temperature at or above 38.0 c or 2 measurements at or above 37.5 c.

    Time frame: Within 24 hours of delivery

  4. Intrapartum fetal distress

    This criterion is met if cardiotocography shows signs consistent with pathological tracing as defined by NICE guidelines (persistent late or variable decelerations, prolonged bradaycardia or sinusoidal rhythm)

    Time frame: Duration of labor (maximum 24 hours)

  5. Birth injuries of the newborn

    Presence of bony fractures, cephalhematoma, or intracranial hemorrhage as evident by physical examination of the newborn

    Time frame: The length of neonatal hospital stay (anticipated duration: 72 hours)

  6. Neonatal distress "asphyxia"

    This is indicated by 1 and 5 minutes APGAR score, resuscitation event, umbilical artery pH, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, length of stay and any further medical complications

    Time frame: The length of stay in hospital/neonatal intensive care unit (anticipated duration: 72 hours)

  7. Duration of labor in hours

    This starts from the onset of active labor (3 cm or more of cervical dilation) till actual delivery

    Time frame: Duration of labor (maximum 24 hours)

  8. Incidence of oxytocin use

    Incidence of administration of intravenous oxytocin during labor for labor augmentation

    Time frame: Duration of labor (maximum duration: 24 hours)

  9. Incidence of instrumental delivery

    Instrumental delivery includes forceps and ventouse deliveries

    Time frame: Duration of labor (maximum duration: 24 hours)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Aswan Faculty of Medicine
    Aswan, 81528, Egypt
    • Sherif Shazly · Contactsherify2k2@gmail.com · +4407554480388
    • Mohamed Abuelazm · Sub investigator
    • Sarah Khaled · Sub investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):179-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026. PubMed 24565430 ↗
  • Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar;131(3):548-58. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3769. Epub 2013 Feb 11. PubMed 23400611 ↗
  • Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012 Jan;29(1):7-18. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1285829. Epub 2011 Aug 10. PubMed 21833896 ↗
  • Neal JL, Ryan SL, Lowe NK, Schorn MN, Buxton M, Holley SL, Wilson-Liverman AM. Labor Dystocia: Uses of Related Nomenclature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015 Sep-Oct;60(5):485-98. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12355. PubMed 26461188 ↗
  • HealthyPeople.gov. Search the Data | Healthy People 2020 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 28]. p. 1-6. Available from: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data-search/Search-the-Data#objid=4660;
  • Tolba SM, Ali SS, Mohammed AM, Michael AK, Abbas AM, Nassr AA, Shazly SA. Management of Spontaneous Labor in Primigravidae: Labor Scale versus WHO Partograph (SLiP Trial) Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Perinatol. 2018 Jan;35(1):48-54. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1605575. Epub 2017 Aug 8. PubMed 28787749 ↗
  • Shazly SA, Embaby LH, Ali SS. The labour scale--assessment of the validity of a novel labour chart: a pilot study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Aug;54(4):322-6. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12209. Epub 2014 May 17. PubMed 24835694 ↗
  • Lavender T, Cuthbert A, Smyth RM. Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 6;8(8):CD005461. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005461.pub5. PubMed 30080256 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Start is estimated for Aug 2022; primary completion for Jul 2023, 11 months later.

Of 18 interventional studies with no phase under Dystocia, half reached primary completion within 23 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 18 and three quarters within 40. This study's planned 11 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Apr 11, 2022
First posted
Apr 22, 2022
StartEst.
Aug 1, 2022
Primary completionEst.
Jul 1, 2023
CompletionEst.
Sep 1, 2023
Last update
Apr 22, 2022
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 22, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05341076
Lead sponsor
Assiut University
Responsible party
Sherif Abdelkarim Mohammed Shazly (M.B.B.Ch, M.S.c, Assiut University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 22, 2022
Start date
Aug 1, 2022 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jul 1, 2023 (estimated)
Completion
Sep 1, 2023 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 22, 2022

Study contacts

Sherif Shazly, MSc
Contact
sherif.shazly.mogge@gmail.com
+4407554480388
Mohamed Abuelazm
Contact
mohamed.abuelazm.mogge@gmail.com

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Apr 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Oxytocin

Start the discussion