You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Effect of food intake during labour on obstetric outcome: randomised controlled trial.
Abstract 1:
To investigate the effect of feeding during labour on obstetric and neonatal outcomes.
                Prospective randomised controlled trial.
                Birth centre in London teaching hospital.
                2426 nulliparous, non-diabetic women at term, with a singleton cephalic presenting fetus and in labour with a cervical dilatation of less than 6 cm.
                Consumption of a light diet or water during labour.
                The primary outcome measure was spontaneous vaginal delivery rate. Other outcomes measured included duration of labour, need for augmentation of labour, instrumental and caesarean delivery rates, incidence of vomiting, and neonatal outcome.
                The spontaneous vaginal delivery rate was the same in both groups (44%; relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.08). No clinically important differences were found in the duration of labour (geometric mean: eating, 597 min v water, 612 min; ratio of geometric means 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03), the caesarean delivery rate (30% v 30%; relative risk 0.99, 0.87 to 1.12), or the incidence of vomiting (35% v 34%; relative risk 1.05, 0.9 to 1.2). Neonatal outcomes were also similar.
                Consumption of a light diet during labour did not influence obstetric or neonatal outcomes in participants, nor did it increase the incidence of vomiting. Women who are allowed to eat in labour have similar lengths of labour and operative delivery rates to those allowed water only.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33298015.


Title 2:
An evaluation of isotonic "sport drinks" during labor.
Abstract 2:
We compared the metabolic effects of allowing women isotonic "sport drinks" rather than water to drink during labor. The effect of these drinks on gastric residual volume was also evaluated. Sixty women in early labor (cervical dilation <5 cm) were randomized to receive either isotonic sport drinks or water only. Plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate, nonesterified fatty acids, and glucose were measured in early labor and at the end of the first stage of labor. Residual gastric volume was assessed within 45 min of delivery by use of an ultrasound scanner. The incidence and volume of vomiting was recorded. At the end of the first stage of labor, plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate (P = 0.000) and nonesterified fatty acids (P = 0.000) had increased and plasma glucose (P = 0.007) had decreased significantly in the Water-Only group. Gastric antral cross-sectional area after delivery was similar in the two groups. The incidence of vomiting and the volume vomited during labor and within the hour of delivery were also similar. There was no difference between the groups in any maternal or neonatal outcome of labor. In conclusion, isotonic drinks reduce maternal ketosis in labor without increasing gastric volume.
                Solid foods may endanger a woman's life if consumed during labor. Isotonic sport fluids were evaluated as a nutritional alternative. Results demonstrate that mothers who have not received parenteral opioids can safely drink isotonic drinks in active labor.


Title 3:
Eating in labour. A randomised controlled trial assessing the risks and benefits.
Abstract 3:
The aim of this study was to determine whether permitting women in labour to eat a light diet would: (i) alter their metabolic profile, (ii) influence the outcome of labour, and (iii) increase residual gastric volume and consequent risk of pulmonary aspiration. Women were randomised to receive either a light diet (eating group, n = 48) or water only (starved group, n = 46) during labour. The light diet prevented the rise in plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate (p = 2.3 x 10(-5)) and nonesterified fatty acids (p = 9.3 x 10(-7)) seen in the starved group. Plasma glucose (p = 0.003) and insulin (p = 0.017) rose in the eating group but there was no difference in plasma lactate (p = 0.167) between the groups. There were no differences between the groups with respect to duration of first or second stage of labour, oxytocin requirements, mode of delivery, Apgar scores or umbilical artery and venous blood samples. Relative gastric volumes estimated by ultrasound measurement of gastric antral cross-sectional area were larger (p = 0.001) in the eating group. This was supported by the observation that those from this group who vomited, vomited significantly larger volumes than those in the starved group (p = 0.001). We conclude that eating in labour prevents the development of ketosis but significantly increases residual gastric volume.


Title 4:
The effect of unrestricted oral carbohydrate intake on labor progress.
Abstract 4:
To determine if unrestricted oral carbohydrate intake during labor reduced the incidence of dystocia in low-risk nulliparous women.
                A randomized clinical trial at a university-affiliated hospital in southeastern Ontario. Low-risk nulliparous women were randomized between 30 and 40 weeks gestation to either an intervention or usual care group.
                Women in the intervention group received, prenatally, guidelines about food and fluid intake during labor and were encouraged to eat and drink as they pleased during labor. Women in the usual care group received no prelabor information and were restricted to ice chips and water during labor in the hospital.
                The incidence of dystocia, defined as a cervical dilatation rate of less than 0.5 cm/hr for a period of 4 hrs after a cervical dilatation of 3 cm.
                Three hundred twenty-eight women were randomized to the intervention (n = 163) or usual care (n = 165) groups. Women in the intervention group reported a significantly different pattern of oral intake during early labor in the hospital (chi(2) = 40.7, p < .001). The incidence of dystocia was 36% (n = 58) in the intervention group and 44% (n = 72) in the usual care group and was not significantly different (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.46, 1.11). There were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes or in the incidence of adverse maternal or neonatal complications.
                Eating and drinking early in labor had no significant impact on the incidence of dystocia and/or adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
Since the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labour for women at low risk of complications. No studies looked specifically at women at increased risk of complications, hence there is no evidence to support restrictions in this group of women. Conflicting evidence on carbohydrate solutions means further studies are needed and it is critical in any future studies to assess women's views.