Trial reportGlobal journal of health science2015
Comparison of the Effects of Maternal Supportive Care and Acupressure (at BL32 Acupoint) on Labor Length and Infant's Apgar Score.
Trial report in Global journal of health science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Continuous support for women during childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Evidence-based intrapartum supportive care in Türkiye: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Assessment of educational intervention and Acupressure during labor on the mother's anxiety level and arterial oxygen pressure of the umbilical cord of infants (PO2). A randomized controlled clinical Trial.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesProlonged labor leads to increase of cesarean deliveries, reduction of fetal heart rate, and maternal as well as infantile complications. Therefore, many women tend to use pharmacological or non-pharmacological methods for reduction of labor length. The present study aimed to compare the effects of maternal supportive care and acupressure (at BL32 acupoint) on labor length and infant's Apgar score.
methodsIn this clinical trial, 150 women with low-risk pregnancy were randomly divided into supportive care, acupressure, and control groups each containing 50 subjects. The data were collected using a questionnaire including demographic and pregnancy characteristics. Then, the data were analyzed using Chi-square test and one-way ANOVA.
resultsThe mean length of the first and second stages of labor was respectively 157.0±29.5 and 58.9±5.8 minutes in the supportive care group, 161.7±37.3 and 56.1±31.4 minutes in the acupressure group, ad 281.0±9.8 and 128.4±44.9 minutes in the control group. The difference between the length of labor stages was significant in the three study groups (P<0.001). Moreover, the frequency of Apgar score>8 in the first and 5th minutes was higher in the supportive care and acupressure groups compared to the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).
conclusionContinuous support and acupressure could reduce the length of labor stages and increase the infants' Apgar scores. Therefore, these methods, as effective non-pharmacological strategies, can be introduced to the medical staff to improve the delivery outcomes.
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.