ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Recumbent Versus Upright Labor Positioning With a Low-Dose Epidural: A Decision-Analytic Model.
Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Recumbent Versus Upright Labor Positioning With a Low-Dose Epidural: A Decision-Analytic Model.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUsing a decision-analytic model, we evaluated the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with birthing in the upright position compared to the recumbent position in patients with a low-dose epidural.
methodsWe designed a decision-analytic model using TreeAge Pro software to compare the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of employing the upright versus recumbent position during the first delivery with a low-dose epidural, incorporating the impact of mode of delivery on a subsequent delivery. We used a theoretical cohort of 756,000 patients, representing the approximate number of nulliparous individuals who have a term birth in the United States annually and are given an epidural. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature.
resultsIn our theoretical cohort of 756,000 nulliparous individuals with a low-dose epidural, the recumbent positioning strategy was associated with 18,652 fewer cesarean deliveries in the first pregnancy (66,210 vs. 84,862), which would lead to 11,228 fewer cesarean deliveries in the second pregnancy (135,787 vs. 147,015) in comparison to the upright position. The recumbent position was also associated with four fewer uterine ruptures (15 vs. 19) and one fewer hysterectomy (4 vs. 5) in the second pregnancy, two fewer maternal deaths (23 vs. 25) in the first delivery, and one fewer maternal death in the second delivery (26 vs. 27). Laboring in the recumbent position saved $157 million ($15.526 billion vs. $15.683 billion) and increased maternal QALYs by 2141 QALYs (19.846 million vs. 19.844 million).
conclusionOur results show that in a theoretical cohort of 756,000 patients, laboring in the recumbent position may save $157 million annually and improve maternal outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating evidence-based cost and outcome data into patient counseling about birthing positions to support informed, shared decision-making while accounting for individual patient preferences.
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.