SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Unveiling the latest evidence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis and GRADE assessment on the effectiveness of acupressure in managing labor pain.
Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping global research on labor and postpartum pain management: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2025).International journal for equity in health · 2026Review
- Rebozo Technique on Labor Pain Intensity: A Systematic Review.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Article
- Effleurage massage as a non-pharmacological intervention for labor pain management among primigravida mothers.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Effects of SP6 Acupressure on Labor Pain During Childbirth Among Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLabor pain is a significant challenge during childbirth, highlighting the necessity for effective pain management strategies. Acupressure has been recognized as a non-pharmacological method; however, its efficacy requires comprehensive evaluation. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to consolidate the most recent evidence regarding the effectiveness of Acupressure in alleviating labor pain and to evaluate the quality of this evidence using the GRADE framework.
methodsAn updated systematic review was conducted by querying multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impact of Acupressure on labor pain. Studies were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias method for randomized trials (RoB). Meta-analyses were performed to determine the overall effect size, and the GRADE approach was applied to assess the certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses of all the data were done using RevMan 5.4.
resultsA total of 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that Acupressure significantly reduces labor pain compared to touch (MD = -1.19, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.72, p < 0.00001), Sham (MD = -1.41, 95% CI -2.55 to -0.27, p = 0.01), and no intervention group (MD = -2.32, 95% CI -2.87 to -1.76, p < 0.00001). Although both SP6 and LI4 Acupressure points reduced pain, SP6 had more of an impact compared to previous reviews. The funnel plot comparing the effect of Acupressure with a touch on labor pain intensity suggested a possible publication bias. The GRADE assessment indicated a moderate to low level of certainty regarding these results.
conclusionsAcupressure seems to be a viable method for alleviating labor pain, supported by moderate to low-quality evidence. Additionally, it is advisable to conduct well-designed RCTs to enhance the validity of these findings and investigate the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness of Acupressure in this setting.
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.