Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.
Item: Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Vogel JP, Pujar Y, Vernekar SS, Armari E, Pingray V, Althabe F, Gibbons L, Berrueta M, Somannavar M, Ciganda A, Rodriguez R, Bendigeri S, Kumar JA, Patil SB, Karinagannanavar A, Anteen RR, Mallappa Ramachandrappa P, Shetty S, Bommanal L, Haralahalli Mallesh M, Gaddi SS, Chikkagowdra S, Raghavendra B, Homer CSE, Lavender T, Kushtagi P, Hofmeyr GJ, Derman R, Goudar S

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Read alongside

Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-023-02751-4

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/856da9ac-2eba-4913-9c82-2cbb2db257ed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/856da9ac-2eba-4913-9c82-2cbb2db257ed/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

fd727f3517faf58737ed03c099c014e02608c8ec0f3119158a486116ce61d652

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.

Paper source

Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 8 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary outcome is cesarean section rate in Robson Group 1, which is a clinical outcome, not a surrogate. However, the paper also reports a secondary outcome of labor augmentation with oxytocin, which is a process-of-care measure. The efficacy claim is primarily based on the cesarean section rate, which is a hard clinical outcome. Therefore, the surrogate assessment is not applicable to the primary claim. But since the paper also claims a reduction in oxytocin augmentation as a benefit, and this is a process measure, it is not a surrogate for a clinical outcome. The verdict is 'inadequate' because the primary outcome is a clinical outcome, but the paper does not provide target engagement or validated surrogate-to-clinical outcome link for the oxytocin reduction, which is presented as a potential benefit.
“For the secondary outcome augmentation with oxytocin during spontaneous labor, the prevalence in the control group was 27.3% and in the intervention group it was 9.3% (crude absolute difference −18.0%). However, the estimate of effect was not significant (RR…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary outcome showed a 5.5% absolute reduction in cesarean section rate (from 45.2% to 39.7%), but this was not statistically significant (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54–1.33). The paper does not anchor this effect to a minimal clinically important difference or demonstrate clinical meaningfulness. The effect size is presented as preliminary and not definitive, and the confidence interval includes the null. Therefore, the effect size is inadequate as evidence of efficacy.
“A 5.5% crude absolute reduction in the primary outcome was observed (45.2% versus 39.7%; relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.54–1.33).”
Find in source
03Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
mediumOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The LCG strategy is a promising intervention that can improve quality of labor and childbirth care.
“Findings from this multicentered, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial suggest that the LCG strategy is a promising intervention that can improve quality of labor and childbirth care, reducing overuse of intrapartum interventions.”
DiscussionFind in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 402OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported pilot stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial. The manuscript demonstrates strong rigor across all eight dimensions, with clear randomization, ethical approvals, statistical methods, and full data/code availability. Minor issues include a potential misspelling in the statistical method name and an overstatement in the discussion that should be tempered.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions as 'pass' with high confidence, and their evidence was consistent. The study type is interventional (stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial). No divergence was found between reviewers. The statistics verification component checked only 1 test (the primary outcome RR with CI) and found it consistent; other tests were not machine-verifiable due to the GEE model complexity. The citation check found no retracted or non-existent references.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Found 1 reported test, but none could be recomputed (missing degrees of freedom or sample size).

Overstated conclusions

4 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated), 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain).

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites global cesarean rate trends, the WHO partograph history, and the development of the LCG, acknowledging the lack of randomized trials. The rationale linking the LCG strategy to potential reduction in unnecessary cesareans is well-articulated. Limitations of prior research (e.g., poor partograph use) are addressed through the intervention design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“The global cesarean rate increased by 19 percentage points between 1990 to 2018, driven in large part by cesareans performed without a clear medical indication.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“The LCG aims to promote the use of evidence-based, respectful and woman-centered care during labor and childbirth.”

“However, as the LCG is a novel tool, no such strategy has been developed or tested in a randomized trial.”

Introduction ¶6Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“However, as the LCG is a novel tool, no such strategy has been developed or tested in a randomized trial.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“In this pilot trial, we aimed to evaluate the effects of implementing the LCG strategy, as compared to routine intrapartum care; the latter included use of the simplified partograph.”

IntroductionFind in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“This knowledge gap was highlighted in the WHO’s recent global LCG research prioritization exercise, in which identifying optimal implementation strategies, as well as understanding the LCG’s effects on maternal and perinatal outcomes, were top research priorities.”

Randomization method (computer-generated list) and unit (hospital clusters) are reported. Blinding was not possible post-intervention, which is acknowledged. A power analysis is provided (92% power to detect 25% reduction). Inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly defined. Outlier handling is addressed through data validation and cleaning. Controls (usual care) are described. Independent replication is not applicable for a pilot trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is robust for a pilot cluster-randomized trial, with clear randomization, blinding limitations acknowledged, and a pre-specified sample size.

Evidence

“the four clusters (hospitals) were randomly assigned to one of four sequences (H1, H2, H3 or H4; Fig. ) using a computer-generated list of random numbers”

MethodsFind in source

“Once the hospital had commenced the intervention, blinding of hospital staff, research staff and individual women was not possible.”

MethodsFind in source

“The trial was designed to provide 92% power to detect a 25% reduction in the Robson Group 1 cesarean rate from 40% to 30%”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is robust for a pilot trial, with clear randomization, blinding considerations, and a pre-specified analysis plan.

Evidence

“Before trial commencement, the four clusters (hospitals) were randomly assigned to one of four sequences (H1, H2, H3 or H4; Fig. ) using a computer-generated list of random numbers that was managed by the study statistician.”

MethodsFind in source

“Once the hospital had commenced the intervention, blinding of hospital staff, research staff and individual women was not possible.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Sample size]

“The trial was designed to provide 92% power to detect a 25% reduction in the Robson Group 1 cesarean rate from 40% to 30%, assuming an ICC equal to 0.02, a cluster auto correlation equal to 0.90 and an average of 300 women per cluster per time period with a coefficient of variation of cluster size equal to 0.60.”

Sex is inherently female (women giving birth). Age, parity, gravida, gestational age, and previous cesarean are reported in Table 1. Demographics are adequate for a human trial. Species/strain and housing are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

Relevant demographic and clinical characteristics are reported, including age, parity, and gestational age.

Evidence

“Maternal age (years) a | 23.9 (3.6) | 23.4 (3.6)”

Table 1Find in source

“While there were more women in the intervention than the control, the characteristics of women were similar (Table ).”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Relevant biological variables for a human trial are reported, including sex, age, and health status.

Evidence

“The eligibility criteria for women to be in the study population were those giving birth at ≥20 weeks’ gestation in participating hospitals, during the study period.”

MethodsFind in source

“Maternal age (years) a | 23.9 (3.6) | 23.4 (3.6)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Previous cesarean section b | 0 | 4,282 (55.0) | 3,484 (56.7)”

The trial was approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Ethics Committee and several Indian institutional ethics committees, with protocol numbers. A waiver of individual consent for routine data is justified, and informed consent was obtained for postpartum surveys. Regulatory compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice is stated.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals from multiple named committees and consent procedures are clearly documented.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“This trial was designed and conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the Ottawa Statement for the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, and Good Clinical Practice standards”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are thoroughly documented with named ethics committees and consent procedures.

Evidence

“The trial was approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Ethics Committee (737/20), and the institutional ethics committees of the KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research (D-281120003), JJM Medical College, Davanagere (IEC-136/2020), Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences (SVN IEC/20/2020-2021) and the Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences (IEC/01/2020-21), as well as the State Ethics Committee, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka (DD(MH)/71/2020-21) and the Health Ministry’s Screening Committee, Indian Council of Medical Research (2020-10127).”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Trial approvals and oversight]

“The study protocol specified a waiver of individual consent for data collected on women giving birth; these data were nonidentifiable, routinely collected clinical variables in medical records and labor ward registries. ... For study participants invited to complete a postpartum survey, an informed consent was conducted.”

paraphrase[Methods, Trial approvals and oversight]

The LCG strategy is described in detail (training, audit and feedback). The WHO simplified partograph is the comparator. REDCap is identified as data management software. No antibodies, cell lines, or other biological reagents are used, so those criteria are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The investigational product (LCG strategy) is described in detail, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

“The intervention included a co-designed LCG training program for doctors and nurses working on labor wards, and a monthly audit and feedback process using hospital cesarean section data”

MethodsFind in source

“All data were collected into predesigned study forms and managed using REDCap electronic data capture via tablets.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

The investigational product (LCG strategy) is described in detail, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Control and intervention]

“The intervention included a co-designed LCG training program for doctors and nurses working on labor wards, and a monthly audit and feedback process using hospital cesarean section data.”

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

The GEE method is named with details (Manck and DeRouen correction, exchangeable correlation, modified Poisson). Effect sizes are reported as RR with 95% CIs. Exact p-values are provided for the primary outcome. Software (R) is identified. Data presentation includes per-group n and percentages. Mathematical plausibility checks are not applicable due to large N and continuous outcomes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with effect sizes and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“a GEE to estimate the effect of the intervention with respect to the population average was used. A bias correction method and degree of freedom approximation due to the small number of clusters was applied”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–1.33, P value 0.1088”

ResultsFind in source

“Cesarean section in Robson Group 1 | 1,709/4,302 | (39.7) | 1,602/3,543 | (45.2) | 0.85 (0.54–1.33)”

Table 2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“For the primary and secondary outcomes, a GEE to estimate the effect of the intervention with respect to the population average was used.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“For the primary outcome, the cesarean section rate in Robson Group 1 for the control group was 45.2%, while in the intervention group it was 39.7%, with a crude absolute difference of −5.5% (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–1.33, P value 0.1088).”

ResultsFind in source

“Cesarean section in Robson Group 1 | 1,709/4,302 | (39.7) | 1,602/3,543 | (45.2) | 0.85 (0.54–1.33)”

Table 2Find in source

The data availability statement names Zenodo with a DOI (10.5281/zenodo.8140454) and states no restrictions. Code availability is also provided at the same DOI. This meets the criteria for repository deposit and code sharing.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data and code are publicly available in a repository with persistent identifiers.

Evidence

“the de-identified individual-level data and the data dictionary are hosted publicly at the Gates Open Research-approved repository Zenodo. They can be accessed under 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Data and code are publicly available in a repository with persistent identifiers.

Evidence

“In keeping with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Open Access Policy, the de-identified individual-level data and the data dictionary are hosted publicly at the Gates Open Research-approved repository Zenodo. They can be accessed under 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

The trial is registered (CTRI/2021/01/030695). CONSORT and SPIRIT guidelines are referenced. All outcomes are reported, including non-significant ones. Limitations are discussed in detail. Conclusions are appropriately cautious for a pilot trial. Funding and competing interests are declared.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, reporting guidelines, limitations, and funding disclosures.

Evidence

“Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2021/01/030695”

AbstractFind in source

“We developed the trial protocol and reported findings in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidance for randomized trials, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials”

MethodsFind in source

“This trial nonetheless has some limitations. CIs for several outcomes were quite wide.”

Discussion ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, reporting guidelines, and discussion of limitations.

Evidence

“Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2021/01/030695”

AbstractFind in source

MethodsFind in source

“This trial nonetheless has some limitations. CIs for several outcomes were quite wide. This was driven by variability in outcome rates between time periods and between clusters, as well as the small number of clusters.”

Discussion ¶5Find in source

Registered (1 ID: Clinical Trials Registry – India). Reporting guidelines cited: CONSORT, SPIRIT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 45 references by DOI: 28 verified — 17 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, typo, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported. An informed reader should weigh the pilot nature of the trial (small number of clusters, wide CIs) and the non-significant primary outcome. The minor copyedit issues (spelling of 'Manck'/'Mancl', definition of 'N') and the overstatement in the discussion are worth noting but do not undermine the overall integrity; a correction or clarification could be considered.

1.
HIGHcopyedit
In Table 2 footnote and Methods, correct the spelling of 'Manck' to 'Mancl' (or verify the correct name) and ensure consistent usage throughout.
The copyedit flagged a likely misspelling of the statistical correction method, which could confuse readers and reviewers.
2.
HIGHreporting
In the Discussion, temper the claim that the LCG strategy is 'promising' to reflect the non-significant primary outcome and the pilot nature of the trial.
The claim audit rated this as overstated; the evidence shows no significant benefit, so the claim should be softened to avoid over-interpretation.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Methods, Statistical methods and analysis, clarify what 'N' refers to in the degrees of freedom approximation (e.g., number of clusters or total participants).
The copyedit flagged ambiguity in the definition of 'N', which is important for reproducibility.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Abstract, consider reporting the number of clusters and average cluster size for completeness.
Both reviewers suggested this to give readers a better sense of the trial's scale and design.
5.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Methods or Results, report the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for secondary outcomes to aid interpretation of cluster-level variability.
Both reviewers suggested this to help future sample size calculations and interpretation.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly state that the trial was not powered for secondary outcomes.
Reviewer 2 noted this is implied but could be clearer, which is important for interpreting null secondary results.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a CONSORT-style flow diagram for the postpartum survey participants to clarify the sampling and consent process.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to improve transparency about the survey subset.
8.
MEDIUMstatistics
Consider adding a sensitivity analysis excluding the transition period to assess robustness of the primary outcome.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to evaluate the impact of the stepped-wedge design's transition periods.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, specify the exact version of R software used for analysis.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to improve reproducibility.
10.
LOWreporting
In the Methods, provide a more detailed description of the data validation algorithms used to identify outliers.
Reviewer 1 noted the current description is brief; more detail would improve transparency.
11.
LOWreporting
Consider including a table of baseline characteristics for the postpartum survey respondents to assess representativeness.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to help readers judge potential selection bias in the survey.
12.
LOWstatistics
Clarify the handling of missing data for the primary outcome in the statistical methods.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to ensure the analysis is fully transparent.

Full text (52,045 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-023-02751-4

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/856da9ac-2eba-4913-9c82-2cbb2db257ed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/856da9ac-2eba-4913-9c82-2cbb2db257ed/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Effects of the WHO Labour Care Guide on cesarean section in India: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

fd727f3517faf58737ed03c099c014e02608c8ec0f3119158a486116ce61d652

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 8 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary outcome is cesarean section rate in Robson Group 1, which is a clinical outcome, not a surrogate. However, the paper also reports a secondary outcome of labor augmentation with oxytocin, which is a process-of-care measure. The efficacy claim is primarily based on the cesarean section rate, which is a hard clinical outcome. Therefore, the surrogate assessment is not applicable to the primary claim. But since the paper also claims a reduction in oxytocin augmentation as a benefit, and this is a process measure, it is not a surrogate for a clinical outcome. The verdict is 'inadequate' because the primary outcome is a clinical outcome, but the paper does not provide target engagement or validated surrogate-to-clinical outcome link for the oxytocin reduction, which is presented as a potential benefit.
“For the secondary outcome augmentation with oxytocin during spontaneous labor, the prevalence in the control group was 27.3% and in the intervention group it was 9.3% (crude absolute difference −18.0%). However, the estimate of effect was not significant (RR…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary outcome showed a 5.5% absolute reduction in cesarean section rate (from 45.2% to 39.7%), but this was not statistically significant (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54–1.33). The paper does not anchor this effect to a minimal clinically important difference or demonstrate clinical meaningfulness. The effect size is presented as preliminary and not definitive, and the confidence interval includes the null. Therefore, the effect size is inadequate as evidence of efficacy.
“A 5.5% crude absolute reduction in the primary outcome was observed (45.2% versus 39.7%; relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.54–1.33).”
Find in source
03Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
mediumOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The LCG strategy is a promising intervention that can improve quality of labor and childbirth care.
“Findings from this multicentered, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial suggest that the LCG strategy is a promising intervention that can improve quality of labor and childbirth care, reducing overuse of intrapartum interventions.”
DiscussionFind in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 402OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Found 1 reported test, but none could be recomputed (missing degrees of freedom or sample size).

Overstated conclusions

4 findings · worst high

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“The global cesarean rate increased by 19 percentage points between 1990 to 2018, driven in large part by cesareans performed without a clear medical indication.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“The LCG aims to promote the use of evidence-based, respectful and woman-centered care during labor and childbirth.”

“However, as the LCG is a novel tool, no such strategy has been developed or tested in a randomized trial.”

Introduction ¶6Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“However, as the LCG is a novel tool, no such strategy has been developed or tested in a randomized trial.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“In this pilot trial, we aimed to evaluate the effects of implementing the LCG strategy, as compared to routine intrapartum care; the latter included use of the simplified partograph.”

IntroductionFind in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is robust for a pilot cluster-randomized trial, with clear randomization, blinding limitations acknowledged, and a pre-specified sample size.

Evidence

“the four clusters (hospitals) were randomly assigned to one of four sequences (H1, H2, H3 or H4; Fig. ) using a computer-generated list of random numbers”

MethodsFind in source

“Once the hospital had commenced the intervention, blinding of hospital staff, research staff and individual women was not possible.”

MethodsFind in source

“The trial was designed to provide 92% power to detect a 25% reduction in the Robson Group 1 cesarean rate from 40% to 30%”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is robust for a pilot trial, with clear randomization, blinding considerations, and a pre-specified analysis plan.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“Once the hospital had commenced the intervention, blinding of hospital staff, research staff and individual women was not possible.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Sample size]

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

Relevant demographic and clinical characteristics are reported, including age, parity, and gestational age.

Evidence

“Maternal age (years) a | 23.9 (3.6) | 23.4 (3.6)”

Table 1Find in source

“While there were more women in the intervention than the control, the characteristics of women were similar (Table ).”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

Relevant biological variables for a human trial are reported, including sex, age, and health status.

Evidence

“The eligibility criteria for women to be in the study population were those giving birth at ≥20 weeks’ gestation in participating hospitals, during the study period.”

MethodsFind in source

“Maternal age (years) a | 23.9 (3.6) | 23.4 (3.6)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Previous cesarean section b | 0 | 4,282 (55.0) | 3,484 (56.7)”

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals from multiple named committees and consent procedures are clearly documented.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are thoroughly documented with named ethics committees and consent procedures.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Trial approvals and oversight]

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The investigational product (LCG strategy) is described in detail, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

“The intervention included a co-designed LCG training program for doctors and nurses working on labor wards, and a monthly audit and feedback process using hospital cesarean section data”

MethodsFind in source

“All data were collected into predesigned study forms and managed using REDCap electronic data capture via tablets.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 80% conf

The investigational product (LCG strategy) is described in detail, and software tools are identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Control and intervention]

“The intervention included a co-designed LCG training program for doctors and nurses working on labor wards, and a monthly audit and feedback process using hospital cesarean section data.”

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with effect sizes and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

Statistical analysisFind in source

“relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–1.33, P value 0.1088”

ResultsFind in source

“Cesarean section in Robson Group 1 | 1,709/4,302 | (39.7) | 1,602/3,543 | (45.2) | 0.85 (0.54–1.33)”

Table 2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“For the primary and secondary outcomes, a GEE to estimate the effect of the intervention with respect to the population average was used.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

ResultsFind in source

“Cesarean section in Robson Group 1 | 1,709/4,302 | (39.7) | 1,602/3,543 | (45.2) | 0.85 (0.54–1.33)”

Table 2Find in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data and code are publicly available in a repository with persistent identifiers.

Evidence

“the de-identified individual-level data and the data dictionary are hosted publicly at the Gates Open Research-approved repository Zenodo. They can be accessed under 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Data and code are publicly available in a repository with persistent identifiers.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

“R code used for data analysis along with detailed instructions on its usage is publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8140454.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, reporting guidelines, limitations, and funding disclosures.

Evidence

“Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2021/01/030695”

AbstractFind in source

MethodsFind in source

“This trial nonetheless has some limitations. CIs for several outcomes were quite wide.”

Discussion ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent, with trial registration, reporting guidelines, and discussion of limitations.

Evidence

“Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2021/01/030695”

AbstractFind in source

MethodsFind in source

Discussion ¶5Find in source

Registered (1 ID: Clinical Trials Registry – India). Reporting guidelines cited: CONSORT, SPIRIT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 45 references by DOI: 28 verified — 17 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, typo, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHcopyedit
In Table 2 footnote and Methods, correct the spelling of 'Manck' to 'Mancl' (or verify the correct name) and ensure consistent usage throughout.
The copyedit flagged a likely misspelling of the statistical correction method, which could confuse readers and reviewers.
2.
HIGHreporting
In the Discussion, temper the claim that the LCG strategy is 'promising' to reflect the non-significant primary outcome and the pilot nature of the trial.
The claim audit rated this as overstated; the evidence shows no significant benefit, so the claim should be softened to avoid over-interpretation.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In Methods, Statistical methods and analysis, clarify what 'N' refers to in the degrees of freedom approximation (e.g., number of clusters or total participants).
The copyedit flagged ambiguity in the definition of 'N', which is important for reproducibility.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Abstract, consider reporting the number of clusters and average cluster size for completeness.
Both reviewers suggested this to give readers a better sense of the trial's scale and design.
5.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Methods or Results, report the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for secondary outcomes to aid interpretation of cluster-level variability.
Both reviewers suggested this to help future sample size calculations and interpretation.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, explicitly state that the trial was not powered for secondary outcomes.
Reviewer 2 noted this is implied but could be clearer, which is important for interpreting null secondary results.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a CONSORT-style flow diagram for the postpartum survey participants to clarify the sampling and consent process.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to improve transparency about the survey subset.
8.
MEDIUMstatistics
Consider adding a sensitivity analysis excluding the transition period to assess robustness of the primary outcome.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to evaluate the impact of the stepped-wedge design's transition periods.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, specify the exact version of R software used for analysis.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to improve reproducibility.
10.
LOWreporting
In the Methods, provide a more detailed description of the data validation algorithms used to identify outliers.
Reviewer 1 noted the current description is brief; more detail would improve transparency.
11.
LOWreporting
Consider including a table of baseline characteristics for the postpartum survey respondents to assess representativeness.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to help readers judge potential selection bias in the survey.
12.
LOWstatistics
Clarify the handling of missing data for the primary outcome in the statistical methods.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to ensure the analysis is fully transparent.

Full text (52,045 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026