Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Comparison the effect of Swedish massage and interferential electrical stimulation on labor pain and childbirth experience in primiparous women: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince mothers are more inclined toward non-pharmacological labor pain management methods, this study aimed to compare the effect of interferential electrical stimulation (IES) and Swedish massage (SM) on labor pain and childbirth experience (primary outcomes) and childbirth satisfaction, duration of active phase and side effects (secondary outcomes) in primiparous women.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was performed on 90 primiparous women. Participants were randomly assigned into three groups through the block randomization method. The SM group received two massage techniques of effleurage and petrissage, on T10-L1 and S2-S4 at cervical dilatation of 4 and 8-10 cm. The IES group received electrical stimulation in a similar way to SM group, with a base frequency of 4000 Hz and a pulse frequency of 80-120 Hz by a physiotherapist. Control group received only routine care.
resultsThe mean pain was significantly lower in the SM group (adjusted mean difference (AMD) - 0.86; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 1.60 to - 0.11) and the IES group (AMD - 0.95; 95% CI - 1.70 to - 0.21) compared to the control group. The mean score of childbirth experience was significantly higher in the SM (MD 5.63; 95% CI 2.15-9.11) and IES (MD 3.66; 95% CI 0.18-7.14) group compared to the control group. The mean childbirth satisfaction in the SM (p = 0.003) and IES (p = 0.046) groups was significantly higher than the control group; and duration of the active phase of labor was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the control group. No serious side effects were occurred in none of the groups.
conclusionSM and IES are safe methods that can significantly reduce pain and duration of active phase and improve the experience and satisfaction of childbirth.
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.