Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Ed. by Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 46, Issue 1


The assessment of labor: a brief history

Wayne R. Cohen
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 4841 North Valley View Road, Tucson, AZ 85718, USA, Tel.: 646-270-5518, Fax: 520-505-4213, E-mail:
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Emanuel A. Friedman
  • Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-03-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2017-0018


In the 1930s, investigators in the US, Germany and Switzerland made the first attempts to quantify the course of labor in a clinically meaningful way. They emphasized the rupture of membranes as a pivotal event governing labor progress. Attention was also placed on the total number of contractions as a guide to normality. Beginning in the 1950s, Friedman determined that changes in cervical dilatation and fetal station over time were the most useful parameters for the assessment of labor progress. He showed all normal labors had similar patterns of dilatation and descent, differing only in the durations and slopes of their component parts. These observations led to the formulation of criteria that elevated the assessment of labor from a rather arbitrary exercise to one guided by scientific objectivity. Researchers worldwide confirmed the basic nature of labor curves and validated their functionality. This system allows us to quantify the effects of parity, analgesia, maternal obesity, prior cesarean, maternal age, and fetal presentation and position on labor. It permits analysis of outcomes associated with labor aberrations, quantifies the effectiveness of treatments and assesses the need for cesarean delivery. Also, dysfunctional labor patterns serve as indicators of short- and long-term risks to offspring. We still lack the necessary translational research to link the physiologic manifestations of uterine contractility with changes in dilatation and descent. Recent efforts to interpret electrohysterographic patterns hold promise in this regard, as does preliminary exploration into the molecular basis of dysfunctional labor. For now, the clinician is best served by a system of labor assessment proposed more than 60 years ago and embellished upon in considerable detail since.

Keywords: Cervical dilatation; fetal descent; labor; labor curves


  • [1]

    Graham H. Eternal Eve. The history of gynecology and obstetrics. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1951.Google Scholar

  • [2]

    Williams JW. Obstetrics: a text-book for the use of students and practitioners. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1903.Google Scholar

  • [3]

    McClure EM, Goldenberg RL. Stillbirth in developing countries: a review of causes, risk factors and prevention strategies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22:183–90.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    Ngoc NT, Merialdi M, Abdel-Aleem H, Carroli G, Purwar M, Zavaleta N, et al. Causes of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths: data from 7993 pregnancies in six developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84:699–705.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Friedman EA, Neff RK. Labor and delivery: Impact on offspring. Littleton MA: PSG Publishing; 1987.Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Calkins LA. The importance of the firm cervix in prolonged labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;67:801–9.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Calkins LA. On predicting the length of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1941;42:802–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Calkins LA. The value of estimating the length of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1959;2:322–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Frey E. Die Bedeutung der Wehentafel für die Physiologie und Pathologie der Geburt beim worzeitigen Blasensprung. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1929;59:613–20.Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Wolf W. Der unzeitige Blasensprung. Stuttgart, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1946:103.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Koller T. Versuch einer graphischen Darstellung des Geburtsverlaufes. Gynaecologia. 1948;126:227.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Zimmer K. Die Muttermundseröffnung bei den Schädellagen im Wegzeit-Diagramm. Arch Gynäkol. 1951;179:495–513.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Calkins LA. The second stage of labor; number of pains. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1949;57:106–12.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Geisendorf W. Le nombre des contractions dans l’accouchement dirigé. Gynecol Obstet (Paris). 1937;35:355.Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68:1568–75.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Friedman EA. Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;6:567–89.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Friedman EA. Labor in multiparas: a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1956;8:691–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Friedman EA. Labor. Clinical evaluation and management. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1967.Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Friedman EA. Labor. Clinical evaluation and management, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978.Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Friedman EA, Kroll BH. Computer analysis of labour progression. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1969;76:1075–9.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22]

    Bottoms SF, Hirsch VJ, Sokol RJ. Medical management of arrest disorders of labor: a current overview. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:935–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    Sokol RJ, Stojkov J, Chik L, Rosen MG. Normal and abnormal labor progress: I. a quantitative assessment and survey of the literature. J Reprod Med. 1977;18:47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

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

  • [25]

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

  • [26]

    Ledger WJ. Monitoring of labor by graphs. Obstet Gynecol. 1969;34:174–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [27]

    Ledger WJ, Witting WC. The use of a cervical dilatation graph in the management of primigravidae in labour. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:710–4.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28]

    Evans MI, Lachman E, Kral S, Melmed H. Predictive value of cervical dilatation rates in labor in multiparous women. Isr J Med Sci. 1976;12:1399–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [29]

    Melmed H, Evans M. Predictive value of cervical dilatation rates. I. primipara labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1976;47:511–5.Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Kwast BE, Lennox CE, Farley TM. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. Lancet. 1994;343: 1399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Studd J, Clegg DR, Sanders RR, Hughes AO. Identification of high risk labours by labour nomogram. Br Med J. 1975;2:545–7.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [32]

    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.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [33]

    Van Bogaert L–J. The partogram’s result and neonatal outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26:321–4.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [34]

    Drouin P, Nkounawa F. The value of the partogramme in the management of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;53:741–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [35]

    Cibils LA, Hendricks CH. Normal labor in vertex presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1965;91:385–95.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36]

    Juntunen J, Kirkinen P. Partogram of a grand multipara: different descent slope compared with an ordinary parturient. J Perinat Med. 1994;22:213–8.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [37]

    Lekprasert V. Monitoring of labour by graph. J Med Assoc Thai. 1972;55:647–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [38]

    Peisner DB, Rosen MG. Transition from latent to active labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:448–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [39]

    Duncan GR, Costello E. The partogram: a graphic guide to progress in labour. N Z Med J. 1975;82:193–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [40]

    Incerti M, Locatelli A, Ghidini A, Ciriello E, Consonni S, Pezzullo JC. Variability in rate of cervical dilatation in nulliparous women at term. Birth. 2011;38:30–5.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [41]

    Friedman EA, Cervimetry: an objective method for the study of cervical dilatation in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1956:71:1189–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [42]

    Friedman EA, Von Micsky LI. Electronic cervimeter: a research instrument for the study of cervical dilatation in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1963;87:789–93.Google Scholar

  • [43]

    Zador I, Neuman MR, Wolfson RN. Continuous monitoring of cervical dilatation during labour by ultrasonic transit time measurement. Med Biol Engineering. 1976;14:299–305.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [44]

    Kok FT, Wallenburg HCS, Wladimiroff JW. Ultrasonic measurement of cervical dilatation during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976;126:288–90.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [45]

    Eijskoot F, Storm J, Kok F, Wallenburg H, Wladimiroff J. An ultrasonic device for continuous measurement of cervical dilatation during labor. Ultrasonics. 1977;15:183–5.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [46]

    Richardson JA, Sutherland IA, Allen DW. A cervimeter for continuous measurement of cervical dilatation in labour: preliminary results. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978;85:178–84.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [47]

    Sharf Y, Farine D, Batzalel M, Megel Y, Shenhav M, Jaffa A, et al. Continuous monitoring of cervical dilatation and fetal head station during labor. Med Eng Phys. 2007;29:61–71.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [48]

    van Dessel HJ, Frijns JH, Kok FT, Wallenburg HC. Ultrasound assessment of cervical dynamics during the first stage of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;53:123–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [49]

    Breeveld-Dwarkasing VN, Struijk PC, Lotgering FK, Eijskoot F, Kindahl H, van der Weijden GC, et al. Cervical dilatation related to uterine electromyographic activity and endocrinological changes during prostaglandin F-induced parturition in cows. Biol Reprod. 2003;68:536–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [50]

    Cohen WR, Newman L, Friedman EA: Frequency of labor disorders with advancing maternal age. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55:414–6.Google Scholar

  • [51]

    Chazotte C, Madden R, Cohen WR. Labor patterns in women with previous cesareans. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(3 Pt1): 350–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [52]

    Verdiales M, Pacheco C, Cohen WR. Effect of maternal obesity on the course of labor. J Perinat Med. 2009;37:651–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [53]

    Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG. Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; CD007123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007123.pub3.Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [54]

    Steer PJ, Carter MC, Beard RW. The effect of oxytocin infusion on uterine activity in slow labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:1120–6.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [55]

    Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR. Dysfunctional labor. II. protracted active-phase dilatation in the nullipara. Obstet Gynecol. 1961;17:566–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [56]

    Gross T, Sokol RJ, Williams T, Thompson K. Shoulder dystocia: a fetal-physician risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:1408–18.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [57]

    Hopwood HG. Shoulder dystocia: fifteen years’ experience in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:162–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [58]

    Weizsaecker K, Deaver JR, Cohen WR. Labour characteristics and neonatal Erb’s palsy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114:1003–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [59]

    Deaver JE, Cohen WR: An approach to the prediction of neonatal Erb palsy. J Perinat Med. 2009;37:150–5.Google Scholar

  • [60]

    Friedman EA, Sachtleben MA, Bresky PA. Dysfunctional labor. XII. Long-term effects on infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;127:779–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [61]

    Friedman EA. Patterns of labor as indicators of risk. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1973;16:172–83.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [62]

    Friedman EA, Sachtleben-Murray MR, Dahrouge D, Neff RK. Long-term effects of labor and delivery on offspring: a matched-pair analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;150: 941–5.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [63]

    Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effects of mode of delivery of nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1709–14.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [64]

    Sorbe B, Dahlgren S. Some important factors in the molding of the fetal head during vaginal delivery – a photographic study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1983;21:2005–12.Google Scholar

  • [65]

    Amiel-Tison C, Sureau C, Shnider SM. Cerebral handicap in full-term neonates related to the mechanical forces of labour. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1988;2:145–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [66]

    Niswander KR, Gordon MJ. The women and their pregnancies: the Collaborative Perinatal Study of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; 1972.Google Scholar

  • [67]

    Schifrin BS, Deymier P, Cohen WR. Fetal neurological injury related to mechanical forces of labor and delivery. In: Zhang L, editor. Stress and developmental programming in health and disease: beyond phenomenology. New York: Nova Science; 2014. p. 651–88.Google Scholar

  • [68]

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy: defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2003.Google Scholar

  • [69]

    Mann LI, Carmichael A, Duchin, S. The effect of head compression on FHR, brain metabolism and function. Obstet Gynecol. 1972;39:721–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [70]

    Ghosh N, Recker R, Shah A, Bhanu B, Ashwal S, Obenaus A. Automated ischemic lesion detection in a neonatal model of hypoxic ischemic injury. J Magn Res Imaging. 2011;33:772–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [71]

    Yeh P, Emary K, Impey L. The relationship between umbilical cord arterial pH and serious adverse neonatal outcome: analysis of 51,519 consecutive validated samples. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;119:824–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [72]

    Ruth VJ, Raivio KO. Perinatal brain damage: predictive value of metabolic acidosis and the Apgar score. Br Med J. 1988;297:24–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [73]

    Cowan F, Rutherford M, Groenendaal F, Eken P, Mercuri E, Bydder GM, et al. Origin and timing of brain lesions in term infants with neonatal encephalopathy. Lancet. 2003;361: 736–42.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [74]

    Smellie W. A Treatise on the theory and practice of Midwifery. London; 1752.Google Scholar

  • [75]

    Little WJ. On the influence of abnormal parturition, difficult labors, premature birth, and asphyxia neonatorum, on the mental and physical conditions of the child, especially in relation to deformities. Trans Obstet Soc Lond. 1862;3:293–344.Google Scholar

  • [76]

    Pu F, Xu L, Li D, Shuyu L, Sun L, Wang L, et al. Effect of different labor forces on fetal skull molding. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33:620–5.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [77]

    Cahill AG, Tuuli MG. Labor in 2013: the new frontier. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:531–4.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [78]

    Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:824–8.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [79]

    Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115;705–10.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [80]

    Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1281–7.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [81]

    Laughon SK, Branch DW, Beaver J, Zhang J. Changes in labor patterns over 50 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012:206:419.e1–9.Google Scholar

  • [82]

    Obstetric Care Consensus Number 1. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693–711.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [83]

    Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Perils of the new labor management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:420–7.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [84]

    Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Viewpoint: Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:753.e1–3CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [85]

    Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG. Introduction to linear regression analysis, 5th ed. London: John Wiley & Sons, 2012:7.1.Google Scholar

  • [86]

    Wray S. Insights from physiology to myometrial function and dysfunction. Exp Physiol. 2015;100:1468–76.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [87]

    Hayes-Gill B, Hassan S, Mirza F, Ommani S, Himsworth J, Solomon M, et al. Accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification using abdominal surface electrodes. Clin Med Insights Womens Health. 2012;5:65–75.Google Scholar

  • [88]

    Euliano TY, Marossero D, Nguyen MT, Euliano NR, Principe J, Edwards RK. Spatiotemporal electrohysterography patterns in normal and arrested labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:54.e1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [89]

    Chaemsaithong P, Madan I, Romero R, Than NG, Tarca AL, Draghici S. Characterization of the myometrial transcriptome in women with an arrest of dilatation during labor. J Perinat Med. 2013;41:665–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [90]

    Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Labor and delivery care: a practical guide. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2011.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Wayne R. Cohen, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, 4841 North Valley View Road, Tucson, AZ 85718, USA, Tel.: 646-270-5518, Fax: 520-505-4213

Received: 2017-01-15

Accepted: 2017-02-15

Published Online: 2017-03-22

Published in Print: 2018-01-26

Author’s statement

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 1–8, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2017-0018.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Wing Ting Tse, Piya Chaemsaithong, Winnie W.Y. Chan, Angel H.W. Kwan, Junhong Huang, Kubi Appiah, Ka Chun Chong, and Liona C. Poon
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2019, Volume 221, Number 4, Page 335.e1
Lele Wang, Huiping Hu, Abraham Nick Morse, Xinjia Han, Junjie Bao, Jingying Yang, Yunshan Chen, and Huishu Liu
Reproductive Sciences, 2019, Page 193371911983435
Gillian A. Ryan, Sarah M. Nicholson, Denis J. Crankshaw, and John J. Morrison
Journal of Perinatology, 2019, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 439
JP Souza, OT Oladapo, B Fawole, K Mugerwa, R Reis, F Barbosa-Junior, L Oliveira-Ciabati, D Alves, and AM Gülmezoglu
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in