SynthesisBMJ open2022
Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06429111 (Effectiveness and Safety in Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Waterbirth Compared to Delivery in Women Using Epidural Analgesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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.
Effectiveness and Safety in Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Waterbirth Compared to Delivery in Women Using Epidural Analgesia
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Bathing for Pain Relief During the First Stage of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review.Reproductive health · 2023Pooled it
- The Effect of Hydrotherapy Application on Pain During Birth and Postpartum Fatigue and Comfort.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Trial
- Characteristics of Women, Intrapartum Interventions, and Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Among Users of Intrapartum Water Immersion: The UK POOL Cohort Study.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Hospital waterbirth for low-risk birthing people: findings of a randomized controlled trial.AJOG global reports · 2025Article
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes of childbirth care in a Freestanding Birth Centre.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Observational
- Hydrotherapy in Pain Management in Pregnant Women: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Intrapartum Quality of Care among Healthy Women: A Population-Based Cohort Study in an Italian Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences.European journal of midwifery · 2024Article
- Safety and Effect of the Use of Hydrotherapy during Labour: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Normal childbirth: The natural, non-medical, alternative approaches to the most common medical interventions in labor.European journal of midwifery · 2023Article
- Alternate Birth Strategies.International journal of women's health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWater immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I
resultsWe included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.
conclusionsThis review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019147001.
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.