Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Effects of an arms-crossing technique added to Lamaze breathing on labour pain: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective non-pharmacological options for labour analgesia remain limited. Lamaze breathing may provide modest analgesic benefits. The crossed-hands effect, associated with altered somatosensory processing, may modulate pain through sensorimotor mechanisms. This trial evaluated whether adding an arms-crossing technique to Lamaze breathing reduces labour pain during the latent phase of labour.
methodsThis single-centre, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial was conducted in the obstetric unit of a hospital in China between April and June 2024. Sixty women in the latent phase of labour were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Lamaze breathing plus an arms-crossing technique (intervention group, n = 30) or Lamaze breathing alone (control group, n = 30). The arms-crossing technique involved repeatedly crossing both arms across the body midline synchronised with rhythmic breathing during uterine contractions. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was labour pain intensity measured using a numerical rating scale across five consecutive contraction cycles. Secondary outcomes included heart rate and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) during contractions and contraction intervals. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.
resultsAll 60 participants completed the study and were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Pain scores decreased over time in both groups; however, the intervention group showed significantly greater reductions in pain scores than the control group. Repeated-measures analysis demonstrated a significant time-by-group interaction for pain scores (F = 6.109, P < 0.001, partial η² = 0.095), with significant between-group differences observed at the fifth contraction cycle (F = 4.742, P = 0.034, partial η² = 0.076). No significant group differences were observed for heart rate or SpO₂ during contractions. SpO₂ during contraction intervals differed significantly between groups (F = 6.824, P = 0.011, partial η² = 0.105), although values remained within normal physiological ranges. No adverse events occurred.
conclusionsAdding an arms-crossing technique to Lamaze breathing significantly reduced labour pain without observable adverse effects. The arms-crossing technique may represent a simple and feasible non-pharmacological strategy for labour pain management.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400083201. Registered 18 April 2024.
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.