ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2025
Investigation of the effects of peanut ball during labor: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Peanut Ball Use on the Labour Process and Maternal-Neonatal Outcomes in Parturient Women With High Maternal Body Mass Index: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of nursing practice · 2026Trial
- A randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of peanut ball device during labor on maternal outcomes and stress levels.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Peanut ball during labor to reduce pain and anxiety: A single-blind randomized clinical trial.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeanut balls, a specific type of positioning aid used during labor, have gained attention for their potential to enhance maternal comfort and facilitate fetal positioning. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of peanut balls on the duration of the first stage of labor, the rate of cesarean section, and maternal satisfaction.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was carried out employing electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search included articles published from inception to 11 October 2023 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies were considered for inclusion if they met the following criteria: participants were pregnant women in labor; intervention involved using a peanut ball during labor; and primary outcome included duration of labor, and the rate of cesarean section and maternal satisfaction were secondary outcomes. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Results were synthesized using Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.1), employing both fixed-effect and random-effects models as appropriate, and results were presented as risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences and standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADEpro GDT (Guideline Development Tool).
resultsEight studies including 1352 laboring women met the criteria to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the women with epidural analgesia who used the peanut ball, experienced a shortened duration of the first stage of labor by 52.98 min, which was statistically significant (p=0.003). Heterogeneity evidence was not found among the included studies (χ
conclusionsThe peanut birth ball reduces the first stage of labor duration, and lowers cesarean rates in women with epidural analgesia. While effective and non-invasive, the findings are limited by the risk of bias in some included studies.
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.