Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35790327›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth.

Ethel Burns, Claire Feeley, Priscilla J Hall, Jennifer Vanderlaan

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06429111 completednot on this map

Effectiveness and Safety in Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Waterbirth Compared to Delivery in Women Using Epidural Analgesia

TypeobservationalSponsorFundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat ValencianaRan2020 to 2023Enrolled642ConditionsNatural Childbirth, Water Birth, Neonatal Asphyxia, Outcome, Adverse BirthArmsEpidural analgesia, Immersion water
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Intrapartum Quality of Care among Healthy Women: A Population-Based Cohort Study in an Italian Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Alternate Birth Strategies.International journal of women's health · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ethel BurnsFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford, UK eburns@brookes.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7505-7621
Claire FeeleyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Priscilla J HallVA School of Nursing Academic Partnership, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jennifer VanderlaanSchool of Nursing, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Oxford Brookes University · GBEmory University · USUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Labor, ObstetricNatural ChildbirthFemaleHumansImmersionInfant, NewbornPainParturitionPregnancyMaternal medicinePain managementPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID35790327
PMCPMC9315919
OpenAlexW4283828125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.