Efficacy of different strategies for reducing labor pain: A Bayesian analysis

0Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of different medical interventions in managing labor pain has yielded mixed results. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the available evidence on the impact of different strategies for reducing labor pain. Methods: We systematically searched 3 English databases (Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library) from inception to January 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials that investigating the effects of different strategies for reducing labor pain were included in this network meta-analysis. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane ROB tools. Network meta-analysis was performed using the R software (version 4.2.1) with gemtc package. Results: A total of 9 studies involving 823 patients, including 9 treatments (acupressure, birth ball exercise, Bonapace method, distraction techniques, ice pressure, LI4 acupressure, lidocaine spray, smartphone-based music intervention and placebo). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) shows that Bonapace method ranked first (SUCRA, 79.5%), LI4 acupressure ranked second (SUCRA, 65.6%), distraction technique ranked third (SUCRA, 57.6%), birth ball exercise ranked fourth (SUCRA, 51.8%). Conclusions: According to the results of the network meta-analysis, among the different strategies examined, the Bonapace Method stands out as the most effective nonpharmacological intervention for reducing labor pain. The results of this meta-analysis can aid both patients and healthcare professionals in choosing the most effective techniques to reduce labor pain.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Feng, Y., Zhu, F., Zhang, J., Zeng, Z., & Li, Q. (2024). Efficacy of different strategies for reducing labor pain: A Bayesian analysis. Medicine (United States), 103(20), E37594. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000037594

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free