BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Background: Improving breastfeeding rates is critical. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only subtle improvements in breastfeeding rates have been observed over the past decade, which highlights the need for accelerating breastfeeding promotion interventions.Objectives: The objective of this article is to update evidence on the effect of interventions on early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs when delivered in health systems, in the home or in community environments, or in a combination of settings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and CABI databases to identify new articles relevant to our current review, which were published after the search date of our earlier meta-analysis (October 2014). Nine new articles were found to be relevant and were included, in addition to the other 52 studies that were identified in our earlier meta-analysis. We reported the pooled ORs and corresponding 95% CIs as our outcome estimates. In cases of high heterogeneity, random-effects models were used and causes were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.Results: Early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs improved significantly as a result of interventions delivered in health systems, in the home or community, or a combination of these. Interventions delivered concurrently in a combination of settings were found to show the largest improvements in desired breastfeeding outcomes. Counseling provided in any setting and baby-friendly support in health systems appear to be the most effective interventions to improve breastfeeding.Conclusions: Improvements in breastfeeding practices are possible in LMICs with judicious use of tested interventions, particularly when delivered in a combination of settings concurrently. The findings can be considered for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool model.
BACKGROUND: Developing countries account for 99 percent of maternal deaths annually. While increasing service availability and maintaining acceptable quality standards, it is important to assess maternal satisfaction with care in order to make it more responsive and culturally acceptable, ultimately leading to enhanced utilization and improved outcomes. At a time when global efforts to reduce maternal mortality have been stepped up, maternal satisfaction and its determinants also need to be addressed by developing country governments. This review seeks to identify determinants of women's satisfaction with maternity care in developing countries.
METHODS: The review followed the methodology of systematic reviews. Public health and social science databases were searched. English articles covering antenatal, intrapartum or postpartum care, for either home or institutional deliveries, reporting maternal satisfaction from developing countries (World Bank list) were included, with no year limit. Out of 154 shortlisted abstracts, 54 were included and 100 excluded. Studies were extracted onto structured formats and analyzed using the narrative synthesis approach.
RESULTS: Determinants of maternal satisfaction covered all dimensions of care across structure, process and outcome. Structural elements included good physical environment, cleanliness, and availability of adequate human resources, medicines and supplies. Process determinants included interpersonal behavior, privacy, promptness, cognitive care, perceived provider competency and emotional support. Outcome related determinants were health status of the mother and newborn. Access, cost, socio-economic status and reproductive history also influenced perceived maternal satisfaction. Process of care dominated the determinants of maternal satisfaction in developing countries. Interpersonal behavior was the most widely reported determinant, with the largest body of evidence generated around provider behavior in terms of courtesy and non-abuse. Other aspects of interpersonal behavior included therapeutic communication, staff confidence and competence and encouragement to laboring women.
CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement efforts in developing countries could focus on strengthening the process of care. Special attention is needed to improve interpersonal behavior, as evidence from the review points to the importance women attach to being treated respectfully, irrespective of socio-cultural or economic context. Further research on maternal satisfaction is required on home deliveries and relative strength of various determinants in influencing maternal satisfaction.
The professionalisation of doula care and research interest in this area of maternity care/support have both grown internationally in recent years highlighting important broader issues around the access, continuity and delivery of maternity care services. However, no work to date has provided a critical appraisal of the international literature on this topic. In response, this paper presents the first critical review of international empirical literature examining professional doula care for pregnant and birthing women. A database search of AMED, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, and MEDLINE using the search term, "doula" was undertaken. A total of 48 papers published between 1980 and March 2013 involving trained or professional doulas were extracted. Four descriptive categories were identified from the review: 'workforce and professional issues in doula care'; 'trained or professional doula's role and skill'; 'physical outcomes of trained or professional doula care'; and 'social outcomes of trained or professional doula care'. Of the studies evaluating outcomes of doula care, there were a number with design and methodology weaknesses. The review highlights a number of gaps in the research literature including a lack of research examining doula workforce issues; focus upon the experience and perspective of significant stakeholders such as expectant fathers with regard to trained or professional doula care; clinical trials measuring both subjective experiences and physical outcomes of trained or professional doula support; synergy between the design of clinical trials research examining trained or professional doula care and the clinical reality of professional doula practice. It is imperative that key aspects of trained doula care be subject to further rigorous, empirical investigation to help establish an evidence base to guide policy and practice relating to this area of support and care for pregnant and birthing women.
BACKGROUND: High maternal mortality and morbidity persist, in large part due to inadequate access to timely and quality health care. Attitudes and behaviours of maternal health care providers (MHCPs) influence health care seeking and quality of care.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies from January 1990 to December 2014. Included studies report on types or impacts of MHCP attitudes and behaviours towards their clients, or the factors influencing these attitudes and behaviours. Attitudes and behaviours mentioned in relation to HIV infection, and studies of health providers outside the formal health system, such as traditional birth attendants, were excluded.
FINDINGS: Of 967 titles and 412 abstracts screened, 125 full-text papers were reviewed and 81 included. Around two-thirds used qualitative methods and over half studied public-sector facilities. Most studies were in Africa (n = 55), followed by Asia and the Pacific (n = 17). Fifty-eight studies covered only negative attitudes or behaviours, with a minority describing positive provider behaviours, such as being caring, respectful, sympathetic and helpful. Negative attitudes and behaviours commonly entailed verbal abuse (n = 45), rudeness such as ignoring or ridiculing patients (n = 35), or neglect (n = 32). Studies also documented physical abuse towards women, absenteeism or unavailability of providers, corruption, lack of regard for privacy, poor communication, unwillingness to accommodate traditional practices, and authoritarian or frightening attitudes. These behaviours were influenced by provider workload, patients' attitudes and behaviours, provider beliefs and prejudices, and feelings of superiority among MHCPs. Overall, negative attitudes and behaviours undermined health care seeking and affected patient well-being.
CONCLUSIONS: The review documented a broad range of negative MHCP attitudes and behaviours affecting patient well-being, satisfaction with care and care seeking. Reported negative patient interactions far outweigh positive ones. The nature of the factors which influence health worker attitudes and behaviours suggests that strengthening health systems, and workforce development, including in communication and counselling skills, are important. Greater attention is required to the attitudes and behaviours of MHCPs within efforts to improve maternal health, for the sake of both women and health care providers.
AIM: To provide comprehensive evidence of the effect of interventions on early initiation, exclusive, continued and any breastfeeding rates when delivered in five settings: (i) Health systems and services (ii) Home and family environment (iii) Community environment (iv) Work environment (v) Policy environment or a combination of any of above.
METHODS: Of 23977 titles identified through a systematic literature search in PUBMED, Cochrane and CABI, 195 articles relevant to our objective, were included. We reported the pooled relative risk and corresponding 95% confidence intervals as our outcome estimate. In cases of high heterogeneity, we explored its causes by subgroup analysis and meta-regression and applied random effects model.
RESULTS: Intervention delivery in combination of settings seemed to have higher improvements in breastfeeding rates. Greatest improvements in early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding rates, were seen when counselling or education were provided concurrently in home and community, health systems and community, health systems and home settings, respectively. Baby friendly hospital support at health system was the most effective intervention to improve rates of any breastfeeding.
CONCLUSION: To promote breastfeeding, interventions should be delivered in a combination of settings by involving health systems, home and family and the community environment concurrently.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nonpharmacologic approaches to pain relief during labor, according to their endogenous mechanism of action, on obstetric interventions, maternal, and neonatal outcomes.
DATA SOURCE: Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the MRCT databases were used to screen studies from January 1990 to December 2012.
STUDY SELECTION: According to Cochrane criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials that compared nonpharmacologic approaches for pain relief during labor to usual care, using intention-to-treat method.
RESULTS: Nonpharmacologic approaches, based on Gate Control (water immersion, massage, ambulation, positions) and Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control (acupressure, acupuncture, electrical stimulation, water injections), are associated with a reduction in epidural analgesia and a higher maternal satisfaction with childbirth. When compared with nonpharmacologic approaches based on Central Nervous System Control (education, attention deviation, support), usual care is associated with increased odds of epidural OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.05-1.23), cesarean delivery OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.44), use of oxytocin OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.43), labor duration (29.7 min, 95% CI 4.5-54.8), and a lesser satisfaction with childbirth. Tailored nonpharmacologic approaches, based on continuous support, were the most effective for reducing obstetric interventions.
CONCLUSION: Nonpharmacologic approaches to relieve pain during labor, when used as a part of hospital pain relief strategies, provide significant benefits to women and their infants without causing additional harm.
This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of a wide range of preventive interventions designed to reduce the severity of postpartum depressive symptoms or decrease the prevalence of postpartum depressive episodes. A systematic review identified 37 randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which an intervention was compared to a control condition. Differences between treatment and control conditions in the level of depressive symptoms and prevalence of depressive episodes by 6 months postpartum were assessed in separate analyses. Depressive symptoms were significantly lower at post-treatment in intervention conditions, with an overall effect size in the small range after exclusion of outliers (Hedges' g=0.18). There was a 27% reduction in the prevalence of depressive episodes in intervention conditions by 6 months postpartum after removal of outliers and correction for publication bias. Later timing of the postpartum assessment was associated with smaller differences between intervention and control conditions in both analyses. Among studies that assessed depressive symptoms using the EPDS, higher levels of depressive symptoms at pre-treatment were associated with smaller differences in depressive symptoms by 6 months postpartum. These findings suggest that interventions designed to prevent postpartum depression effectively reduce levels of postpartum depressive symptoms and decrease risk for postpartum depressive episodes.
BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are over 20% in many developed countries. The main diagnosis contributing to the high rate in nulliparae is dystocia or prolonged labour. The present review assesses the effects of a policy of early amniotomy with early oxytocin administration for the prevention of, or the therapy for, delay in labour progress.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of early augmentation with amniotomy and oxytocin for prevention of, or therapy for, delay in labour progress on the caesarean birth rate and on indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to 4 July 2013), Embase (1980 to 4 July 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 4 July 2013), MIDIRS (1985 to 4 July 2013) and contacted authors for data from unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared oxytocin and amniotomy with expectant management.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently. We stratified the analyses into 'Prevention Trials' and 'Therapy Trials' according to the status of the woman at the time of randomization. Participants in the 'Prevention Trials' were unselected women, without slow progress in labour, who were randomized to a policy of early augmentation or to routine care. In 'Treatment Trials' women were eligible if they had an established delay in labour progress.
MAIN RESULTS: For the 2013 update, we identified and excluded one new clinical trial. This updated review includes 14 trials, randomizing a total of 8033 women. The unstratified analysis found early intervention with amniotomy and oxytocin to be associated with a modest reduction in the risk of caesarean section; however, the confidence interval (CI) included the null effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 14 trials; 8033 women). In prevention trials, early augmentation was associated with a modest reduction in the number of caesarean births (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99; 11 trials; 7753). A policy of early amniotomy and early oxytocin was associated with a shortened duration of labour (average mean difference (MD) - 1.28 hours; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.59; eight trials; 4816 women). Sensitivity analyses excluding four trials with a full package of active management did not substantially affect the point estimate for risk of caesarean section (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05; 10 trials; 5165 women). We found no other significant effects for the other indicators of maternal or neonatal morbidity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In prevention trials, early intervention with amniotomy and oxytocin appears to be associated with a modest reduction in the rate of caesarean section over standard care.
BACKGROUND: Lay health workers (LHWs) perform functions related to healthcare delivery, receive some level of training, but have no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. They provide care for a range of issues, including maternal and child health. For LHW programmes to be effective, we need a better understanding of the factors that influence their success and sustainability. This review addresses these issues through a synthesis of qualitative evidence and was carried out alongside the Cochrane review of the effectiveness of LHWs for maternal and child health.
OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of the review is to explore factors affecting the implementation of LHW programmes for maternal and child health.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 21 December 2011); MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, OvidSP (searched 21 December 2011); CINAHL, EBSCO (searched 21 December 2011); British Nursing Index and Archive, OvidSP (searched 13 May 2011). We searched reference lists of included studies, contacted experts in the field, and included studies that were carried out alongside the trials from the LHW effectiveness review.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and that focused on the experiences and attitudes of stakeholders regarding LHW programmes for maternal or child health in a primary or community healthcare setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified barriers and facilitators to LHW programme implementation using the framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed study quality using a standard tool. We assessed the certainty of the review findings using the CerQual approach, an approach that we developed alongside this and related qualitative syntheses. We integrated our findings with the outcome measures included in the review of LHW programme effectiveness in a logic model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses in future updates of the review of effectiveness.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 studies primarily describing the experiences of LHWs, programme recipients, and other health workers. LHWs in high income countries mainly offered promotion, counselling and support. In low and middle income countries, LHWs offered similar services but sometimes also distributed supplements, contraceptives and other products, and diagnosed and treated children with common childhood diseases. Some LHWs were trained to manage uncomplicated labour and to refer women with pregnancy or labour complications.
Many of the findings were based on studies from multiple settings, but with some methodological limitations. These findings were assessed as being of moderate certainty. Some findings were based on one or two studies and had some methodological limitations. These were assessed have low certainty.
Barriers and facilitators were mainly tied to programme acceptability, appropriateness and credibility; and health system constraints. Programme recipients were generally positive to the programmes, appreciating the LHWs’ skills and the similarities they saw between themselves and the LHWs. However, some recipients were concerned about confidentiality when receiving home visits. Others saw LHW services as not relevant or not sufficient, particularly when LHWs only offered promotional services. LHWs and recipients emphasised the importance of trust, respect, kindness and empathy. However, LHWs sometimes found it difficult to manage emotional relationships and boundaries with recipients. Some LHWs feared blame if care was not successful. Others felt demotivated when their services were not appreciated. Support from health systems and community leaders could give LHWs credibility, at least if the health systems and community leaders had authority and respect. Active support from family members was also important.
Health professionals often appreciated the LHWs’ contributions in reducing their workload and for their communication skills and commitment. However, some health professionals thought that LHWs added to their workload and feared a loss of authority.
LHWs were motivated by factors including altruism, social recognition, knowledge gain and career development. Some unsalaried LHWs wanted regular payment, while others were concerned that payment might threaten their social status or lead recipients to question their motives. Some salaried LHWs were dissatisfied with their pay levels. Others were frustrated when payment differed across regions or institutions. Some LHWs stated that they had few opportunities to voice complaints.
LHWs described insufficient, poor quality, irrelevant and inflexible training programmes, calling for more training in counselling and communication and in topics outside their current role, including common health problems and domestic problems. LHWs and supervisors complained about supervisors’ lack of skills, time and transportation. Some LHWs appreciated the opportunity to share experiences with fellow LHWs.
In some studies, LHWs were traditional birth attendants who had received additional training. Some health professionals were concerned that these LHWs were over-confident about their ability to manage danger signs. LHWs and recipients pointed to other problems, including women’s reluctance to be referred after bad experiences with health professionals, fear of caesarean sections, lack of transport, and cost. Some LHWs were reluctant to refer women on because of poor co-operation with health professionals.
We organised these findings and the outcome measures included in the review of LHW programme effectiveness in a logic model. Here we proposed six chains of events where specific programme components lead to specific intermediate or long-term outcomes, and where specific moderators positively or negatively affect this process. We suggest how future updates of the LHW effectiveness review could explore whether the presence of these components influences programme success.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rather than being seen as a lesser trained health worker, LHWs may represent a different and sometimes preferred type of health worker. The close relationship between LHWs and recipients is a programme strength. However, programme planners must consider how to achieve the benefits of closeness while minimizing the potential drawbacks. Other important facilitators may include the development of services that recipients perceive as relevant; regular and visible support from the health system and the community; and appropriate training, supervision and incentives.
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I2 = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I2 = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I2 = 73%; Tau2 = 1.89; Chi2 = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
