Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23881649›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Enemas during labour.

Ludovic Reveiz, Hernando G Gaitán, Luis Gabriel Cuervo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Ludovic ReveizResearch Promotion and Development Team, Health Systems Based on Primary Health Care (HSS), Pan American Health Organization,Washington DC, USA. mmreveiz@hotmail.com
Hernando G Gaitán
Luis Gabriel Cuervo
Pan American Health Organization (Cuba) · CUPrimary Health Care · QAUniversidad Nacional de Colombia · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 (31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 31 May 2013), LILACS (31 May 2013), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2013), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (31 May 2013), Medical Research Council, UK (31 May 2013), The Wellcome Trust, UK (31 May 2013) 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; I(2) 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

Labor Stage, FirstUmbilicusBacterial InfectionsDefecationEnemaFemaleHumansPerineumPregnancyPuerperal InfectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk

Identifiers

PMID23881649
PMCPMC7032672
OpenAlexW2143818010

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.