Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098629›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026

The effects, outcomes and acceptability of sterile water injections to relieve low back pain among birthing women in a tertiary hospital in Ghana: a non-randomised study.

Awube Menlah, Sue Kruske, Clare Davison, Isabella Garti, Yu Gao, Jonas Awuku-Afari, Nigel Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Awube MenlahValley View University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, P.O Box DT 595, Adenta, Accra, Ghana. awube.menlah@vvu.edu.gh.
Sue KruskeCharles Darwin University, Faculty of Health / Molly Wardaguga Institute, 7 Ellengowan Dr, Darwin, NT, 0810, Australia.
Clare DavisonUniversity of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, UTS Building 10, Level 7, 235-253 Jones Street, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Isabella GartiCharles Darwin University, Faculty of Health / Molly Wardaguga Institute, 7 Ellengowan Dr, Darwin, NT, 0810, Australia.
Yu GaoCharles Darwin University, Faculty of Health / Molly Wardaguga Institute, 7 Ellengowan Dr, Darwin, NT, 0810, Australia.
Jonas Awuku-AfariDepartment of Anaesthesia, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, P.O Box KB 77, Korle-Bu, Accra, Ghana.
Nigel LeeUniversity of Queensland, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 30% of women experience low back pain when in labour. Large placebo-controlled trials conducted in high-resource settings have demonstrated the efficacy of sterile water injections (SWI) to manage back pain in labour. The procedure has also been endorsed by influential international clinical guidelines. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of the procedure amongst women in low-resource settings such as Ghana, where access to any analgesia may be limited, has not been explored. Investigating the clinical utility of SWI, assessing effectiveness and acceptability, is essential for determining its potential benefits for birthing women in this low- and middle-income country (LMIC).

methodsA non-randomised quasi-experimental study was conducted. Women in labour at term with self-reported back pain chose either a treatment with SWI or standard care. Participants in the SWI group received intradermal injections of sterile water, 0.1 mL, four points bordering the lumbo-sacral region (Michaelis' Rhomboid). Self-reported back pain scores using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were obtained prior to and following treatment up to 120 min after the injections for both groups. The difference in VAS score between groups was analysed using a multilevel repeated-measure analysis. Secondary endpoints included women's satisfaction with the intervention and maternal and neonatal birth outcomes.

resultsDuring the study period, 73 women were enrolled, 51 choosing SWI and 22 standard care. There was no difference between the two cohorts in self-reported back pain prior to treatment. Women who received SWI reported a significant reduction at 30 min (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -98.29 to -88.60; p < .001) in VAS scores compared to women opting for standard care at all time points (10, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min). The maternal satisfaction survey, conducted with the intervention group, indicated that over 90% of participants were satisfied with their treatment experience and were willing to recommend SWI to others.

conclusionSWI was clinically effective and acceptable to women birthing in Ghana, who reported satisfaction and endorsement. There was a strong association between SWI and a reduction in labour back pain with no adverse effects recorded during the study period.

trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry with the identification number PACTR202307748580298 on 28th July 2023. Prospectively registered.

Indexed as

Labor PainLow Back PainPatient Acceptance of Health CareWaterAdultFemaleGhanaHumansInjections, IntradermalPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPregnancyTertiary Care CentersTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultWaterAcceptabilityBack painLabour painSterile water injections

Identifiers

PMID42098629
PMCPMC13321596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.