SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Enemas during labour.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women.
objectivesTo assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 17 May 2012), LILACS (17 May 2012), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 May 2012), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (17 May 2012), Medical Research Council, UK (17 May 2012), The Wellcome Trust, UK (17 May 2012) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. MAIN
resultsFour RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I² 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.
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.