SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of uterine fundal pressure during the second stage of labour for women giving birth in health facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Gentle fundal pressure to facilitate vaginal delivery: A randomized clinical trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Trial
- The usual suspect: cross-sectional study of fundal pressure at second stage of delivery and the association with pelvic floor damage.International urogynecology journal · 2021Trial
- Trial
- A comparison in maternal and neonatal outcomes between mild fundal pressure and vacuum extraction for shortening the second stage of labor.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor: A comparison in maternal and neonatal outcomes between mild fundal pressure and vacuum extraction for shortening the second stage of labor-Reconsidering the use of the term "mild fundal pressure" in obstetric practice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Enhancing person-centered obstetric care: A qualitative grounded theory study on perception formation and sense-making during childbirth.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- Mistreatment and Discrimination during Childbirth, Associations with Symptoms of Childbirth-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and the Mediating Role of the Subjective Birth Experience: A Quantitative Analysis Within the Prospective Cohort Study RESPECTGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2025Article
- Making sense of fundal pressure: A qualitative study on women's experiences of a non-evidence-based yet commonly practiced intervention.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Obstetric interventions' effects on the birthing experience.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Evidence-based intrapartum care during vaginal births: Direct observations in a tertiary care hospital in Central Sri Lanka.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Observation of non-recommended (harmful) intrapartum practices among obstetric care providers in public hospitals in southern Ethiopia, 2023.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Observational
- The condemned fundal pressure maneuver: time to reconsider?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- The reproductive potential of uterus transplantation: future prospects.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Development of an instrument to measure mistreatment of women during childbirth through item response theory.PloS one · 2022Article
- Uterine fundal pressure in the second stage of labor (Kristeller maneuver) and pelvic floor dysfunction.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Cerebral Palsy in Moldova.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFundal pressure during the second stage of labour (also known as the 'Kristeller manoeuvre') involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal, in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal birth and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable belt. Fundal pressure is widely used, however methods of its use vary widely. Despite strongly held opinions in favour of and against the use of fundal pressure, there is limited evidence regarding its maternal and neonatal benefits and harms. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
objectivesTo determine if fundal pressure is effective in achieving spontaneous vaginal birth, and preventing prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth, and to explore maternal and neonatal adverse effects related to fundal pressure. SEARCH
methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure (manual or by inflatable belt) versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and quality. We extracted data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager 5 software and checked for accuracy. MAIN
resultsNine trials are included in this updated review. Five trials (3057 women) compared manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure. Four trials (891 women) compared fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure. It was not possible to blind women and staff to this intervention. We assessed two trials as being at high risk of attrition bias and another at high risk of reporting bias. All other trials were low or unclear for other risk of bias domains. Most of the trials had design limitations. Heterogeneity was high for the majority of outcomes. Manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressureManual fundal pressure was not associated with changes in: spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.28; 120 women; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence), instrumental births (RR 3.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 79.65; 197 women; 1 trial), caesarean births (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.27; 197 women; 1 trial), operative birth (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.55; 317 women; 2 studies; I² = 43%; Tau² = 0.71; very low-quality evidence), duration of second stage (mean difference (MD) -0.80 minutes, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06 minutes; 194 women; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; 297 women; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 4.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 71.45; 2759 infants; 4 trials; I² = 89%; Tau² = 3.55; very low-quality evidence). More women who received manual fundal pressure had cervical tears than in the control group (RR 4.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.98; 295 women; 1 trial). No neonatal deaths occurred in either of the two studies reporting this outcome (very low-quality evidence). No trial reported the outcome severe maternal morbidity or death. Fundal pressure by inflatable belt versus no fundal pressureFundal pressure by inflatable belt did not reduce the number of women havinginstrumental births (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 52%; Tau² = 0.05) or operative births (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.01; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 78%; Tau² = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity was high for both outcomes. Duration of second stage was reported in two trials, which both showed that inflatable belts shortened duration of labour in nulliparous women (average MD -50.80 minutes, 95% CI -94.85 to -6.74 minutes; 253 women; 2 trials; I² = 97%; Tau² = 975.94; very low-quality evidence). No data on this outcome were available for multiparous women. The inflatable belt did not make any difference to rates of caesarean births (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 70%; Tau² = 0.98), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55; 461 infants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68; 500 infants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Third degree perineal tears were increased in the inflatable belt group (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02; 500 women; 1 trial). Spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time, neonatal death, andsevere maternal morbidity or death were not reported in any trial. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the beneficial or harmful effects of fundal pressure, either manually or by inflatable belt. Fundal pressure by an inflatable belt during the second stage of labour may shorten duration of second stage for nulliparous women, and lower rates of operative birth. However, existing studies are small and their generalizability is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. There is no evidence on the use of fundal pressure in specific clinical settings such as inability of the mother to bear down due to exhaustion or unconsciousness. There is currently insufficient evidence for the routine use of fundal pressure by any method on women in the second stage of labour. Because of current widespread use of the procedure and the potential for use in settings where other methods of assisted birth are not available, further good quality trials are needed. Further evaluation in other groups of women (such as multiparous women) will also be required. Future research should describe in detail how fundal pressure was applied and consider safety of the unborn baby, perineal outcomes, longer-term maternal and infant outcomes and maternal satisfaction.
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.