ArticleAJOG global reports2025
Hospital waterbirth for low-risk birthing people: findings of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in AJOG global reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Waterbirth is the act of giving birth submerged in a tub of warm water, with the baby born underwater. Support for widespread adoption of waterbirth in the United States (US) has been limited by predominantly retrospective study designs, the underutilization of interdisciplinary citations, and disagreement between professional organizations. No randomized controlled trials of waterbirth have been conducted in the US. Objective: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare pain management, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction between low-risk water and land group study participants. Study Design: Low-risk pregnant adults were offered study participation between 25 to 34 weeks of gestation during routine prenatal care. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were consented, enrolled, and randomly assigned to waterbirth or land birth in a 2:1 unblinded fashion, to achieve a sample size of n=120 (80 waterbirth: 40 land birth). The sample size was adjusted for attrition and increased to n=186 (124 waterbirth: 62 land birth) based on an interim analysis. Participants in both arms were excluded if they developed intrapartum risk factors prior to delivery using a modified intention-to-treat model. Study participants received routine intrapartum care, including all available pain relief options. Only those assigned to the waterbirth group were given the option of giving birth in water. Prior to discharge, participants completed Results: From January 2022 to December 2023, 186 participants were enrolled (n=124 waterbirth, n=62 land birth). Following enrollment, 106 participants (n=74 waterbirth, and n=32 land birth) remained eligible for the study. Attrition was 39%. Compared to the land birth group, waterbirth participants were significantly less likely to use intravenous narcotics [RR: 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.75), Conclusion: This study further contributes to the growing body of evidence that waterbirth reduces intravenous analgesia and anesthesia use and increases maternal satisfaction. The findings of our study provide support for hospitals to offer waterbirth as a pain relief option for low-risk birthing people.
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.