Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22258999›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour.

Sheena Derry, Sebastian Straube, R Andrew Moore, Heather Hancock, Sally L Collins

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Immersion in water during labour and birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Acupuncture for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  11. Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  12. Non-opioid drugs for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  13. Local anaesthetic nerve block for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  14. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  15. Aromatherapy for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  16. Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Immersion in water in labour and birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Effects of intracutaneous injections of sterile water in patients with acute low back pain: a randomized, controlled, clinical trial.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2016
    Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sheena DerryPain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Oxford,UK. sheena.derry@pru.ox.ac.uk.
Sebastian Straube
R Andrew Moore
Heather Hancock
Sally L Collins
University of Oxford · GBUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

Department of Health 10/4000/02Department of Health SRP/10/4000/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntracutaneous or subcutaneous injection of sterile water is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labour and it is therefore essential that it is properly evaluated. Adequate analgesia in labour is important to women worldwide. Sterile water injection is inexpensive, requires basic equipment, and appears to have few side effects. It is purported to work for labour pain.

objectivesTo determine the efficacy of sterile water injections for relief of pain (both typical contraction pain and intractable back pain) during labour compared to placebo (isotonic saline injections) or non-pharmacological interventions, and to identify any relevant effects on mode and timing of delivery, or safety of both mother and baby. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2011), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2010 to 30 May 2011), together with reference lists in retrieved studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double blind, controlled studies using intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injections for pain relief during labour. There were no restrictions on birth place, parity, risk, age, weight, gestation, or stage of labour. Potential comparators were placebo (saline) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. hypnosis or biofeedback). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements or uncertainties by discussion with a third review author. Primary outcome measures were at least 50% pain relief, or at least 30%, pain relief, patient global impression of change of at least 'good', mode of delivery, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were women with any pain relief, use of rescue analgesia, and treatment group average pain relief. We made explicit judgements about potential biases in the studies. MAIN

resultsWe included seven studies, with 766 participants: four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All reported on low back pain in labour only. Methodological quality was good, but four studies were at high risk of bias due to small size of treatment groups, incomplete outcome data, and performance bias.All studies reported treatment group mean or median scores, finding greater reduction in pain for sterile water. However, failure to demonstrate a normal distribution for pain intensity or relief, and use of different scales, meant meta-analysis was inappropriate. No study reported primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes. One reported the number self-scoring 4/10 cm or more reduction in pain; significantly more had this outcome with sterile water (50% to 60%) than with placebo (20% to 25%).There was no significant difference between sterile water and saline for rates of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.02), instrumental delivery (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.18), rescue analgesia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.69), timing of delivery, or Apgar scores. Two studies reported that more women treated with sterile water would request the same analgesia in future.No study reported on women's satisfaction with pain relief, women's sense of control in labour, women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience, mother/baby interaction, rates of breastfeeding, maternal morbidity, infant long-term outcomes, or cost. No adverse events were reported other than transient pain with injection, which was worse with sterile water. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe outcomes reported severely limit conclusions for clinical practice. We found little robust evidence that sterile water is effective for low back or any other labour pain. Neither did we find any difference in delivery or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Further large, methodologically rigorous studies are required to determine the efficacy of sterile water to relieve pain in labour.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesia, ObstetricalCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInjections, IntradermalInjections, SubcutaneousLabor PainLow Back PainPain ManagementPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSodium ChlorideSterilizationWaterSodium ChlorideWater

Identifiers

PMID22258999
PMCPMC11663508
OpenAlexW2121052567

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.