According to a new data, cervical dilatation during labour for vaginal births can progress more slowly than the widely accepted benchmark of 1 cm / hour in many women. The study findings were published in the   PLOS MedicineSpontaneous labor progression for vaginal births is slower than expected in many women.

The new data was published by Olufemi Oladapo, Medical Officer at WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research including the UNDP / UNFPA / UNICEF / WHO / World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction ( HRP ), Switzerland, and colleagues

As part of the World Health Organization's Better Outcomes in Labor Difficulty ( BOLD ) project, the authors examined the patterns of labor progression based on cervical dilatation over time.

The authors examined progression in a cohort of 5,606 women in Nigeria and Uganda who gave birth vaginally, with no adverse birth outcomes, following onset of spontaneous labor.

Researchers found that median time to advance by 1 cm exceeded 1 hour until 5 cm was reached for women having their first child and women who had given birth previously.

Furthermore, women giving birth to their first child and progressing at the slowest rates (95th percentile) may take up to 7 hours to progress from 4 to 5 cm, over 3 hours to progress from 5 to 6 cm, and up to 9 hours to progress from 6 to 10 cm.

The authors NOTED That as labor May not naturally accelerate in some women with cervical dilatation of at least 5 cm interventions to expedite labor Before This dilatation is Reached May be Inappropriate, irrespective of whether or not the woman has Given birth before.

The authors said: "Our work progression data clearly demonstrate that a minimum cervical dilatation rate of 1 cm / hour throughout the period traditionally described as active phase may be unrealistically fast for some  women  and should therefore not be universally applied as a threshold for identifying abnormally progressing labor. "

The authors add that "Averaged labor may not truly reflect the variability associated with labor progression , and their use for decision-making in labor management should be de-emphasized."