Cochrane · systematic review · CD009290
Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour
Smith, CA, Levett, KM, Collins, CT, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
30
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
14
Included studies
NR
No studies 14 · 46.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 40%Low 4 · 13.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Massage compared to usual care for pain management in labour
Population: women in labour
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity — first stage of labour Massage vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 362 participants | Low Downgraded: indirectness |
Sense of control in labour Seven point scale, 29 items range ‘1=almost always’, to ‘7=rarely’ Massage vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 124 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Sense of control in labour (shortened Labour Agentry Scale). Seven point scale range ‘1=almost always’, to ‘7=rarely’ Massage vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 56 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Satisfaction with childbirth experience. Five point scale, 5=more satisfaction Massage vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Satisfaction with childbirth experience Massage vs usual care | RR 1.9 [1.07, 3.38] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Assisted vaginal birth Massage vs usual care | RR 0.71 [0.44, 1.13] | 4 studies · 368 participants | Very low Downgraded: indirectness |
Caesarean section Massage vs usual care | RR 0.75 [0.51, 1.09] | 6 studies · 514 participants | Very low Downgraded: indirectness |
Use of pharmacological pain relief Massage vs usual care | RR 0.81 [0.37, 1.74] | 4 studies · 368 participants | Very low Downgraded: indirectness |
Length of labour (minutes) Massage vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 514 participants | Very low Downgraded: indirectness |
Warm pack compared to usual care for pain management in labour
Population: women in labour
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity — first stage of labour Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 191 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sense of control in labour — not reported Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Satisfaction with childbirth experience — not reported Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Assisted vaginal birth — not reported Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Caesarean section — not reported Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Use of pharmacological pain relief — not reported Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Length of labour: minutes Warm pack vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 128 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Thermal manual methods compared to usual care for pain management in labour
Population: women in labour
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity ‐ first stage of labour Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sense of control in labour — not reported Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Satisfaction with childbirth experience — not reported Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Assisted vaginal birth Thermal manual methods vs usual care | RR 0.52 [0.08, 3.54] | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caesarean section — not reported Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Use of pharmacological pain relief — not reported Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Length of labour: minutes Thermal manual methods vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 96 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Massage compared to music for pain management in labour
Population: women in labour
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain intensity "severe pain reported" Massage vs music | RR 0.4 [0.18, 0.89] | 1 study · 101 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Sense of control in labour — not reported Massage vs music | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Satisfaction with childbirth experience — not reported Massage vs music | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Assisted vaginal birth — not reported Massage vs music | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Caesarean section — not reported Massage vs music | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Use of pharmacological pain relief Massage vs music | RR 0.41 [0.16, 1.08] | 1 study · 101 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Length of labour — not reported Massage vs music | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |