ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Sweet Expectation and Positive Thinking: The Use of Mandalas in Labor Induction. A Randomized Pilot Clinical Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Labor induction is one of the most common medical interventions in obstetric practice and is often associated with feelings of pressure and lack of control. Mandala coloring or drawing is considered a meditative practice that may help express emotions, calm the mind, and promote awareness. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Mandala coloring in improving the labor experience in nulliparous women undergoing induction. A secondary aim was to assess its effects on birth outcomes and analgesia requests. Patients and Methods: We conducted a monocentric, parallel-group randomized clinical trial. Patients in the intervention group (Group A; n = 26) received standard induction care plus Mandala coloring materials, while the control group (Group B; n = 26) received standard care only. The primary outcome was measured using the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), a 22-item self-administrated survey useful to asses a woman's satisfaction with her labor and delivery experience. Secondary outcomes were recorded in a dedicated database. Results: The average CEQ score was 69.31 (SD 5.08) in Group A and 68.84 (SD 8.32) in Group B (P=0.81). Analgesia was requested by 15 women (57.7%) in Group A and 13 (50.0%) in Group B (P=0.33). In Group A, there were 17 spontaneous deliveries (65.4%), 5 operative deliveries (19.2%), and 4 Cesarean sections (15.4%). In Group B, 20 spontaneous deliveries (76.9%), 1 operative delivery (3.8%), and 5 Cesarean sections (19.2%) were observed (P=0.22). Conclusion: The results did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the birth experience, obstetric outcomes, and the request for labor analgesia. However, the small difference observed in favor of the experimental group might indicate a positive trend which could become more evident in a study with greater statistical power and warrant further investigation.
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.