Since the 50 s of the last century, labor charts have been proposed and appraised as a tool to diagnose labor abnormalities and guide decision-making. The partogram, the most widely adopted form of labor charts, has been endorsed by the world health organization (WHO) since 1994. Nevertheless, recent studies and systematic reviews did not support clinical significance of application of the WHO partogram. These results have led to further studies that investigate modifications to the structure of the partogram, or more recently, to reconstruct new labor charts to improve their clinical efficacy. This guideline appraises current evidence on use of labor charts in management of labor specially in low-resource settings.

In a recent review we expressed concerns about new guidelines for the assessment and management of labor recommended jointly by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). These guidelines are based heavily on a new concept of how cervical dilatation and fetal descent progress, derived from the work of Zhang et al. In their Viewpoint article they have addressed, but not allayed, the concerns we described in our review. We assert that the dilatation curve promulgated by Zhang et al cannot be reconciled with direct clinical observation. Even if they were correct, however, it still does not follow that the ACOG/SMFM guidelines should recommend replacing the coherent system of identifying and managing labor aberrations described by Friedman. That system is grounded in well-established clinical principles based on decades of use and the objectively documented association of some labor abnormalities with poor fetal and maternal outcomes. Recommendations for new clinical management protocols should require the demonstration of superior outcomes through extensive, preferably prospective, assessment. Using untested guidelines for the management of labor may adversely affect women and children. Even if those guidelines were to reduce the currently excessive cesarean delivery rate, the price of that benefit is likely to be a trade-off in harm to parturients and their offspring. The nature and degree of that harm needs to be documented before considering adoption of the guidelines.

Recent guidelines issued jointly by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine for assessing labor progress differ substantially from those described initially by Friedman, which have guided clinical practice for decades. The guidelines are based on results obtained from new and untested methods of analyzing patterns of cervical dilatation and fetal descent. Before these new guidelines are adopted into clinical practice, the results obtained by these unconventional analytic approaches should be validated and shown to be superior, or at least equivalent, to currently accepted standards. The new guidelines indicate the patterns of labor originally described by Friedman are incorrect and, further, are inapplicable to modern obstetric practice. We contend that the original descriptions of normal and abnormal labor progress, which were based on direct clinical observations, accurately describe progress in dilatation and descent, and that the differences reported more recently are likely attributable to patient selection and the potential inaccuracy of very high-order polynomial curve-fitting methods. The clinical evaluation of labor is a process of serially estimating the likelihood of a safe vaginal delivery. Because many factors contribute to that likelihood, such as cranial molding, head position and attitude, and the bony architecture and capacity of the pelvis, graphic labor patterns should never be used in isolation. The new guidelines are based heavily on unvalidated notions of labor progress and ignore clinical parameters that should remain cornerstones of intrapartum decision-making.