Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23440824›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.

Emily Kemp, Claire J Kingswood, Marion Kibuka, Jim G Thornton

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily KempFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Claire J Kingswood
Marion Kibuka
Jim G Thornton
University of Nottingham · GBEast Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects.

objectivesTo assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright versus recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors to try to obtain missing data. MAIN

resultsFive randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, were included in the review.Overall, we identified no statistically significant difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation to birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women). Nor did we identify any clear differences in the incidence of instrumental birth or caesarean section separately, nor in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing, operative birth for fetal distress, low cord pH or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out.There were no data reported on excess blood loss, prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, ObstetricalCesarean SectionExtraction, ObstetricalFemaleHumansLabor Stage, SecondPatient PositioningPosturePregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23440824
OpenAlexW4237763297

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.