Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846688›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation.

M E Coyle, C A Smith, B Peat

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The status and future of acupuncture clinical research.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2008
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Changes in skin surface temperature at an acupuncture point with moxibustion.Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society · 2013
    Article
  14. How does moxibustion possibly work?Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The effectiveness of moxibustion: an overview during 10 years.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Regional anesthesia for external cephalic version: its time has come.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2010
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M E CoyleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5006. meaghan.coyle@adelaide.edu.au
C A Smith
B Peat
Monash University · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMoxibustion (a type of Chinese medicine which involves burning a herb close to the skin) to the acupuncture point Bladder 67 (BL67) (Chinese name Zhiyin), located at the tip of the fifth toe, has been proposed as a way of correcting breech presentation. As caesarean section is often suggested for breech babies due to the potential difficulties during labour, it is preferable to turn the baby before labour starts.

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion on changing the presentation of an unborn baby in the breech position, the need for external cephalic version (ECV), mode of birth, and perinatal morbidity and mortality for breech presentation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (30 August 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2004), EMBASE (1980 to March 2004), CINAHL (1982 to March 2004), MIDIRS (1982 to March 2004), CISCOM (9 March 2004) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing moxibustion (either alone or in combination with acupuncture) with a control group (no moxibustion), or other methods (e.g. external cephalic version, acupuncture) in women with a singleton breech presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors assessed eligibility and quality of trials independently. The outcome measures were baby's presentation at birth, need for external cephalic version, mode of birth, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and maternal satisfaction, and adverse events. MAIN

resultsThree trials involving a total of 597 women were included. Due to differences in interventions and sample size it was not appropriate to perform a meta-analysis for the main outcome. Only one trial reported on other outcome measures relevant to this review. Moxibustion reduced the need for ECV (relative risk (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.66) and resulted in decreased use of oxytocin before or during labour for women who had vaginal deliveries (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of moxibustion to correct a breech presentation. Moxibustion may be beneficial in reducing the need for ECV, and decreasing the use of ocytocin, however there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to evaluate moxibustion for breech presentation which report on clinically relevant outcomes as well as the safety of the intervention.

Indexed as

Breech PresentationFemaleHumansMoxibustionPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVersion, Fetal

Identifiers

PMID15846688
OpenAlexW4249015172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.