ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Nipple stimulation for labour augmentation: evidence from randomised and quasi-experimental studies.
Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysiological childbirth is associated with a safer birth, including reducing unnecessary medical interventions, and having a more positive birthing experience. Synthetic oxytocin, commonly used for labour augmentation, carries risks such as neonatal complications, uterine hyperstimulation, and postpartum haemorrhage. Nipple stimulation (NS) may offer a safe, non-pharmaceutical alternative for labour augmentation.
aimTo explore the effectiveness and safety of nipple stimulation used for labour augmentation in women with spontaneous contractions or rupture of the membranes.
methodA literature review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and Consensus.app. A narrative synthesis was conducted following the ESRC guidance for synthesizing quantitative evidence, using thematic analysis and structured exploration of relationships across studies. Calculations of Odds Ratios and Confidence Intervals were made where permissible.
resultsTen studies (four RCTs, five quasi-experimental, one cross-sectional) involving 1251 women were included. NS was effective for augmenting labour in most studies, reducing synthetic oxytocin usage, increasing contraction frequency and Bishop scores, shortening the duration of labour stage one, and increasing the likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth. NS appeared safe in the included studies, with few and reversible side effects reported. However, substantial heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and measured outcomes limited comparability and precluded meta-analysis.
conclusionsNipple stimulation appears to be safe and effective for labour augmentation. However, substantial heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes limits generalisability. Further large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed to establish clinical protocols and determine which populations benefit most.
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.