ArticlePloS one2025
Biomechanical assessment of upright birthing positions using marker-based and markerless motion capture systems.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
Understanding the effects of birthing positions on labour is crucial for optimising maternal and foetal outcomes. Upright positions are encouraged but their biomechanics are not fully understood. Biomechanical changes during labour can make certain positions more or less favourable depending on individual physical characteristics. Understanding these factors is essential for tailoring strategies that enhance maternal comfort and facilitate labour. This study aimed to quantify the biomechanics of seven common upright birthing positions, comparing their biomechanical characteristics and evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of marker-based and markerless motion capture systems. Fifteen healthy, non-pregnant women performed seven upright birthing positions. Hip, pelvis, and trunk kinematics were assessed using a 9-camera marker-based system and an 8-camera markerless system. Significant biomechanical differences were found between birthing positions. The "squat" position showed the most hip flexion and abduction, "B-Ball" had the greatest anterior pelvic tilt, and "all-fours" exhibited the most posterior tilt. For the trunk, "upright" led to the most extension, and "elbows bent knees" showed the most flexion. Agreement between systems varied by joint and plane: it was moderate to strong for hip angles in the coronal plane and for pelvic angles in the transverse plane, but limited in the sagittal plane and inconsistent for trunk measures. This study highlights the biomechanical differences in upright birthing positions and emphasises the need for personalised birthing strategies. Understanding labour biomechanics is crucial for improving maternal and foetal well-being and reducing complications. By providing comprehensive and evidence-based information, women can make informed decisions about their birthing positions, enhancing outcomes and lowering the risk of maternal and neonatal complications globally.
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.