SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009
Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The prevalence of uterine fundal pressure during the second stage of labour for women giving birth in health facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- First do no harm - interventions during labor and maternal satisfaction: a descriptive cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Prevention of pelvic floor disorders: international urogynecological association research and development committee opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Labor and birth care by nurse with midwifery skills in Brazil.Reproductive health · 2016Article
- A cross-sectional survey of policies guiding second stage labor in urban Japanese hospitals, clinics and midwifery birth centers.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
- Profile and birthing practices of Maranao traditional birth attendants.International journal of women's health · 2015Article
- Comparing the outcomes of physiologic delivery with non-physiologic delivery group.International journal of preventive medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFundal pressure during the second stage of labour involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal delivery and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative delivery. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable girdle. A survey in the United States found that 84% of the respondents used fundal pressure in their obstetric centres.There is little evidence to demonstrate that the use of fundal pressure is effective to improve maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Several anecdotal reports suggest that fundal pressure is associated with maternal and neonatal complications: for example, uterine rupture, neonatal fractures and brain damage. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
objectivesTo determine the benefits and adverse effects of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies. We extracted the data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy. MAIN
resultsWe excluded two of three identified trials from the analyses for methodological reasons. This left no studies on manual fundal pressure. We included one study (500 women) of fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure to reduce operative delivery rates. The methodological quality of the included study was good.Use of the inflatable belt did not change the rate of operative deliveries (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11). Fetal outcomes in terms of five-minute Apgar scores below seven (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68), low arterial cord pH (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55) and admission to the neonatal unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.45) were also not different between the groups. There was no severe neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity. There was an increase in intact perineum (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.77), as well as anal sphincter tears (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02) in the belt group. There were no data on long-term outcomes. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no evidence available to conclude on beneficial or harmful effects of manual fundal pressure. Good quality randomised controlled trials are needed to study the effect of manual fundal pressure. Fundal pressure by an insufflatable belt during the second stage of labour does not appear to increase the rate of spontaneous vaginal births in women with epidural analgesia. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. The effects on the maternal perineum are inconclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19821352What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.