Partogram: an important tool in managing labour!

Swagatha Mukherjee, Raksha M., Malini K. V.


Background: Various types and designs of partographs are being used at various centers. WHO introduced simplified version of partogram, for the use by skilled birth attendant. Preprinted paper versions of the partograph are available

Methods: 100 antenatal women were selected for study. Patients with vertex presentation and singleton pregnancy were taken. Patients who came late in labour and those with cephalopelvic disproportion were not included in the study. Cervical Dilatation in cms was assessed by per vaginal examination every 2 hourly, fetal Heart Rate every ½ hourly, uterine contractions and maternal pulse measured every ½ hourly, maternal BP and temperature were measured every 4th hourly.

Results: Using WHO simplified partogram, characteristics of labour and neonatal outcome was evaluated. Among the 100 women included in the study, 78 required augmentation of labour, here 6 of them crossed the alert line and underwent LSCS. Of the 22 women who did not require augmentation, 4 crossed the alert line and underwent LSCS.

We didn’t find any difference in monitoring of labour using simplified version of WHO partogram compared with other partograms, apparently it’s more simpler to plot and easy to understand.

Conclusions: An alert line on partogram should be based on lower 10th centile rate of cervical dilatation of the local population. We found this rate as 1cm/hr, which corresponds to the slope of alert line

on standard partogram. Based on this we conclude, simplified partogram is good enough for monitoring labour progress.


Simplified partogram, Alert line, Action line

Full Text:



Matthews M. The Partograph for the Prevention of Obstructed Labour. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2009;52:(2):256-69.

Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68:1568-5.

Lavender T, Hart A, Smyth RM. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1-4.

Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:592-8.

Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Effect of different partogram action lines on birth outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:295-302.

The partograph, managerial tool for prevention of prolonged labour; WHO Geneva. 1988.

Beazley JM, Kurjak A. Influence of a partograph on the active management of labour. Lancet. 1972;2:348-51.

Duncan GR, Costello E. The partogram: a graphic guide to progress in labour. NZ Med J. 1975;82:193-5.

Thom MH, Chan KK, Studd JW. Outcome of normal and dysfunctional labour in different racial groups. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;135:495-8.

Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. II. The action line and treatment of abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:599-602.

Hendricks CH, Brenner WE, Kraus G. Normal cervical dilatation pattern in late pregnancy and labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970;106:1065-82.

Duignan NM, Studd JW, Hughes AO. Characteristics of normal labour in different racial groups. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;82:593-601.

Cartmill RS, Thornton JG. Effect of presentation of partogram information on obstetric decision-making. Lancet. 1992;339:1520-2.

Dujardin B, De SI, Kulker R. The partograph: is it worth including the latent phase? Trop Doct. 1995;25:43-4.

De Groof D, Vangeenderhuysen L, Juncker T. Impact of introduction of partogram on maternal and perinatal mortality. Ann soc Belg Med Trop. 1995;321-30.