ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Mobility-enabling birth beds versus traditional gynecological tables: A quasi-experimental study of birth experiences and clinical outcomes.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares birth experiences and clinical outcomes between women giving birth using mobility-enabling labor-birth-postpartum (LBP) beds and those using a traditional gynecological table (TGT).
methodsThis quasi-experimental study was conducted between June and October 2025 in a secondary-level maternity unit in Turkey. A total of 320 women who had vaginal births were sequentially assigned to either the LBP group (n = 160) or the TGT group (n = 160). Continuous variables were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-tests, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons, and categorical variables using χ
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Regarding the primary outcome, no significant difference in labor duration was observed between the groups (P = 0.254). After multiplicity adjustment, episiotomy (45.0% vs. 67.5%) and fundal compression (6.9% vs. 25.0%) were significantly less frequent in the LBP group (P < 0.001). Women using LBP beds reported lower pain scores and higher birth satisfaction (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in neonatal variables after adjusting the significance threshold (P > 0.0029).
conclusionThese results suggest that while mobility-enabling LBP beds do not shorten labor duration, they are associated with a substantial reduction in obstetric interventions from extremely high institutional levels and enhanced maternal birth experiences. By supporting maternal movement and positional flexibility, these beds may facilitate physiologic labor and represent a practical strategy for strengthening woman-centered intrapartum care. However, environmental modifications should be integrated with broader institutional policy shifts to fully align with global evidence-based standards and further reduce the need for routine interventions.
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.