Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31799460›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2019

Complementary therapy and alternative medicine: effects on induction of labour and pregnancy outcome in low risk post-dates women.

Li Mei Koh, Beccy Percival, Tara Pauley, Sangeeta Pathak

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Li Mei KohNorth West Anglia NHS Trust, Peterborough City Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peterborough, UK.
Beccy PercivalNorth West Anglia NHS Trust, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Huntingdon, UK.
Tara PauleyNorth West Anglia NHS Trust, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Huntingdon, UK.
Sangeeta PathakNorth West Anglia NHS Trust, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Huntingdon, UK.
Hinchingbrooke Hospital · GBPeterborough City Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplementary therapy and Alternative medicine (CAM) is used worldwide for many ailments and is a popular option amongst pregnant women for general wellbeing and managing symptoms. Many studies investigating the use of CAM in the antenatal and intrapartum period have been conducted however there is a lack of evidence regarding its effects on induction of labour and delivery. We established a post-dates clinic comprising of an antenatal check and CAM for low risk pregnant women to determine the impact of CAM on these outcomes.

methodsThis was a cohort study with convenience sampling. A total of 1044 women were included. 397 received a combination of three CAM techniques (acupressure, reflexology and aromatherapy) and 647 women received standard clinical practice. The primary outcome was rate of induction of labour and secondary outcomes such as rates for epidural, length of labour, oxytocin use for induction or augmentation of labour, mode of delivery, blood loss during delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, significant perineal trauma, shoulder dystocia and admission of the baby to a special care unit were analysed.

findingsCAM did not have an effect on rates of induction of labour in nulliparous or multiparous women attending the post-dates clinic. However, we noted that nulliparous women who received CAM had shorter labours (mean 8.4 vs 10 h, p = 0.0002), less oxytocin augmentation (23% vs 35%, p = 0.0002), lower epidural rates (41% vs 50.5%, p = 0.02) and reduced blood loss regardless of mode of delivery (mean reduction 82ml, p = 0.03; 95%CI = -159 to -5). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes when CAM was used in multiparous women apart from a 5.3 times increased risk of significant perineal trauma (6% vs 2%, p = 0.004) and those who had their labours induced after CAM had a higher risk of requiring an emergency caesarean section (5% vs 1%, p = 0.012). There was no difference on shoulder dystocia and neonatal admissions rates with CAM.

conclusionThere is no reduction in induction of labour rates with the use of CAM. The other effects of CAM on labour and delivery outcomes are varied and potentially only beneficial in a selected group of women. Further research must be carried out before making any clear recommendations on its use.

Indexed as

Alternative medicineClinical researchComplementary therapyInduction of labourObstetricsPregnancyWomen's health

Identifiers

PMID31799460
PMCPMC6881689
OpenAlexW2990182901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.