Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26066641›Full record

Trial reportBMC complementary and alternative medicine2015

Acupuncture with manual and electrical stimulation for labour pain: a two month follow up of recollection of pain and birth experience.

Linda Vixner, Lena B Mårtensson, Erica Schytt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01197950 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Acupuncture to Reduce Labour Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01197950 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Acupuncture to Reduce Labour Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SkövdeRan2008 to 2011Enrolled303ConditionsLabour PainArmsManual Acupuncture, Electro Acupuncture
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Linda VixnerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Division of Reproductive Health, Karolinska Institutet, Retzius väg 13A, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. lvi@du.se.
Lena B MårtenssonSchool of Health and Education, University of Skövde, P.O. Box 408, 541 28, Skövde, Sweden.
Erica SchyttDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Division of Reproductive Health, Karolinska Institutet, Retzius väg 13A, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a previous randomised controlled trial we showed that acupuncture with a combination of manual- and electrical stimulation (EA) did not affect the level of pain, as compared with acupuncture with manual stimulation (MA) and standard care (SC), but reduced the need for other forms of pain relief, including epidural analgesia. To dismiss an under-treatment of pain in the trial, we did a long-term follow up on the recollection of labour pain and the birth experience comparing acupuncture with manual stimulation, acupuncture with combined electrical and manual stimulation with standard care. Our hypothesis was that despite the lower frequency of use of other pain relief, women who had received EA would make similar retrospective assessments of labour pain and the birth experience 2 months after birth as women who received standard care (SC) or acupuncture with manual stimulation (MA).

methodsSecondary analyses of data collected for a randomised controlled trial conducted at two delivery wards in Sweden. A total of 303 nulliparous women with normal pregnancies were randomised to: 40 min of MA or EA, or SC without acupuncture. Questionnaires were administered the day after partus and 2 months later.

resultsTwo months postpartum, the mean recalled pain on the visual analogue scale (SC: 70.1, MA: 69.3 and EA: 68.7) did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: adjusted mean difference 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.3 to 7.9 and SC vs EA: mean difference 1.3 CI 95% -5.5 to 8.1). Positive birth experience (SC: 54.3%, MA: 64.6% and EA: 61.0%) did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 1.8, CI 95% 0.9 to 3.7 and SC vs EA: OR 1.4 CI 95% 0.7 to 2.6).

conclusionsDespite the lower use of other pain relief, women who received acupuncture with the combination of manual and electrical stimulation during labour made the same retrospective assessments of labour pain and birth experience 2 months postpartum as those who received acupuncture with manual stimulation or standard care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01197950.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyElectric StimulationLabor PainAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansPregnancyRetrospective StudiesSweden

Identifiers

PMID26066641
PMCPMC4490752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.