SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Umbrella review and meta-analysis of the effect of delayed and immediate pushing in the second stage of labor on neonatal outcomes.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo compare neonatal outcomes for immediate pushing and delayed pushing in the second stage of labor in women receiving epidural analgesia. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL without restrictions by language, date of publication, or methodological quality. STUDY SELECTION: The inclusion criteria were based on methodological and clinical factors such as population (pregnant women with epidural analgesia), intervention and control (delayed versus immediate pushing), neonatal outcomes, and study design (systematic reviews). DATA EXTRACTION: The outcome measures were Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min, neonatal intensive care unit admission, prevalence of low umbilical artery cord pH, and umbilical artery cord pH. The methodological quality was analyzed using the Assessing the Methodological Study Tool for Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Risk Of Bias In Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) scales, and the strength of evidence was established according to the Guidelines Advisory Committee grading criteria. For the umbilical artery cord pH variable, standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included. The results suggest no difference between groups for Apgar test scores at 5 min, nor in the rate of neonatal intensive care unit admissions. Mixed results were found for delayed pushing leading to improvements in Apgar test scores at 1 min. No statistically significant between-group differences in the umbilical artery cord pH were found. The total duration of the second stage in the delayed pushing group was not significantly correlated with the umbilical artery cord pH.
conclusionsDelayed pushing produces at least the same neonatal outcomes as immediate pushing in healthy pregnant women receiving epidural analgesia with a single fetus in vertex presentation with a limited quality of evidence. Review registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42023397616).
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.