SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.
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. It is linked to 12 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 212 papers, 35 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.
Pain Management During Labor: Use of Intermittent Drug Delivery Devices for Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome Improvement and Health-care Burden Reduction
Pethidine Versus Nitrous Oxide for Pain Relief During Labor Among Multiparous. A Randomized Controlled Trial
Epidural Analgesia During Labour Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Patient Controlled Epidural Analgesia Versus Patient Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Levobupivacaine
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation During Labor. A Triple Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
The Effect Of Sacral Massage On Labour Pain and Anxiety: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Improving Labour Induction Analgesia: a Randomized Control Trial of Single Epidural Fentanyl Bolus at Epidural Initiation for Induction of Labour
Spinal Sufentanil for Relief of Labor Pain in Primi- and Multiparous Parturients
The Effect of Adjuvant Hypnosis Added to Conventional Therapy on Nausea and Vomiting in Hyperemesis Gravidarum: A Prospective Randomized Study
Virtual Reality Glasses During Extra-Amniotic Balloon Insertion for Pain and Anxiety Relieve - a Randomized Controlled Trial
The Influence of the Anesthesiologists' Gender on Time Delay for Labor Epidural Anesthesia
The Effect of External Pressure Applı̇ed to the Palm on Labor Paı̇n and Childbirth Experı̇ence
Effect of Mechanical Massage Cushion on Labor Pain and Comfort: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
212 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 605 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on labour pain management methods utilization and its associated factors among obstetric caregivers in Ethiopia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of floating needles in the treatment of postpartum urinary incontinence and pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacological pain relief and women´s birth experience: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Influence of Laboring People's Mobility and Positional Changes on Birth Outcomes in Low-Dose Epidural Analgesia Labor: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Water and Conventional Delivery during Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review with network meta-analysis on mono strategy of anaesthesia for preeclampsia in caesarean section.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Complementary and alternative therapies for post-caesarean pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Aromatherapy in the Management of Labor Pain and Anxiety: A Systematic Review.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Women's experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review.Reproductive health · 2019Pooled it
- Labour Q1 pain - poorly analysed and reported: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Naloxone for opioid-exposed newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Neonatal interventions for preventing cerebral palsy: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Immersion in water during labour and birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).
objectivesTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews. MAIN
resultsWe identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus. WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects. Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. AUTHORS'
conclusionsMost methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.