Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152275›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

Kelly Madden, Philippa Middleton, Allan M Cyna, Mandy Matthewson, Leanne Jones

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
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. It is linked to trial NCT07293221 (Use of Immersive Virtual Reality for the Management of Anxiety Among Nurses), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT07293221 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Use of Immersive Virtual Reality for the Management of Anxiety Among Nurses : a Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSCP Anesthésie - Réanimation de la Clinique du Pont de ChaumeRan2026 to 2028Enrolled56ConditionsAnxiety, Nurse Based Care ManagementArmsvirtual reality
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. The Efficacy, Safety and Applications of Medical Hypnosis.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Hypnotherapy in management of delivery pain: a review.European journal of translational myology · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. [Pain therapy in obstetrics].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2017
    Article
  12. New Labor Pain Treatment Options.Current pain and headache reports · 2016
    Review
  13. Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model.The International journal of clinical and experimental hypnosis · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kelly MaddenSchool of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. klmadden@utas.edu.au
Philippa Middleton
Allan M Cyna
Mandy Matthewson
Leanne Jones
University of Tasmania · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundThis review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review.

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology. MAIN

resultsWe included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Indexed as

Analgesia, ObstetricalFemaleHumansHypnosisLabor, ObstetricLabor PainLength of StayPatient SatisfactionPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23152275
OpenAlexW4246789530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.