Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38338258›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor.

Elena Mellado-García, Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez, Jonathan Cortés-Martín, Juan Carlos Sánchez-García, Beatriz Piqueras-Sola, Juan Carlos Higuero Macías, Raquel Rodríguez-Blanque

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

7 authors.

Elena Mellado-GarcíaResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.
Lourdes Díaz-RodríguezResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7906-5656
Jonathan Cortés-MartínResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4019-8555
Juan Carlos Sánchez-GarcíaResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4650-2159
Beatriz Piqueras-SolaResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.
Juan Carlos Higuero MacíasCosta del Sol, Servicio Andaluz de Salud, Junta de Andalucía, 29603 Marbella, Spain.
Raquel Rodríguez-BlanqueResearch Group CTS-1068, Andalusia Research Plan, Junta de Andalucía, 18014 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2086-1222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there is scientific evidence regarding the use of water immersion during labor, this evidence is primarily focused on the first stage of labor. There is limited scientific evidence on water immersion during the second stage of labor.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and synthesis of contemporary evidence related to water birth, with a specific focus on the second stage of labor.

methodsA systematic review of the scientific literature published between January 2018 and October 2023 was carried out. A synthesis of the results was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were utilized as information sources. The search strategy was designed using the keywords "immersion" and "parturition", along with their relevant synonyms. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies employing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and quantitative and qualitative approaches focusing on pregnant women undergoing water immersion at any stage of the labor process.

resultsEleven articles were selected: two systematic reviews (one quantitative and one qualitative), five cohort studies, one case-control study, one cross-sectional observational study, and two qualitative studies. A thorough assessment of the methodology was performed using several specific tools: the Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk of Bias 2) tool for systematic reviews, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies, STROBE for observational descriptive studies, and CASPe for qualitative studies. The results provided fundamental insights that will contribute to conceptual standardization regarding the effects of water birth on maternal and fetal health. Additionally, a synthesis of the results was performed concerning types of delivery, analgesia use, pain perception, and maternal satisfaction with the water birth experience.

conclusionsIn this study, we conclude that the results regarding delivery types, labor durations, and analgesia use found in the literature, along with statistically significant maternal/fetal effects, are crucial for making recommendations regarding the use of water during labor in any of its stages if the woman desires it safely.

Indexed as

analgesiadeliveryevidence-based medicinelabor stageobstetricpain perceptionpregnant womensecondwater immersion

Identifiers

PMID38338258
PMCPMC10855539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.