ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
A comparison in maternal and neonatal outcomes between mild fundal pressure and vacuum extraction for shortening the second stage of labor.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor: A comparison in maternal and neonatal outcomes between mild fundal pressure and vacuum extraction for shortening the second stage of labor-Fundal pressure maneuvers are not created equal.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor: A comparison in maternal and neonatal outcomes between mild fundal pressure and vacuum extraction for shortening the second stage of labor-Reconsidering the use of the term "mild fundal pressure" in obstetric practice.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMild fundal pressure (MFP) and vacuum extraction (VE) are interventions used during the second stage of labor when clinical intervention is required. While VE is well established with standardized training and predictable risks, MFP remains controversial with limited comparative data. This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of MFP versus VE in women requiring intervention during the second stage of labor.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of women with singleton term pregnancies requiring intervention during the second stage of labor at a tertiary medical center (January 2022-June 2025). Both interventions were appropriate for the same indications; the choice was at physician discretion. The primary outcome was a composite maternal outcome comprising obstetric anal sphincter injury or postpartum hemorrhage. The secondary outcome was a composite neonatal outcome including Apgar score <7 at 5 min, umbilical cord pH <7.1, birth trauma, or neonatal intensive care unit admission.
resultsOf 2389 women, 641 (26.8%) underwent VE and 1748 (73.2%) received MFP. The composite maternal outcome occurred in 13.7% of VE versus 8.7% of MFP (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.79). The composite neonatal outcome occurred in 10.5% of VE versus 5.2% of MFP (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34-0.65), driven by higher birth trauma following VE (4.2% vs. 0.7%). After adjustment, MFP was associated with lower odds of composite maternal outcome (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.91) and composite neonatal outcome (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32-0.99).
conclusionMild fundal pressure was associated with lower odds of composite maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes compared with VE.
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.