Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour [with consumer summary] | 
| Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K, St George Saunders NJ | 
| BMJ 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):314 | 
| clinical trial | 
| 7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* | 
| 
                     OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of labouring in water during first stage of labour on rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery in nulliparous women with dystocia. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: University teaching hospital in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 99 nulliparous women with dystocia (cervical dilation rate < 1 cm/hour in active labour) at low risk of complications. INTERVENTIONS: Immersion in water in birth pool or standard augmentation for dystocia (amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates. Secondary: augmentation rates with amniotomy and oxytocin, length of labour, maternal and neonatal morbidity including infections, maternal pain score, and maternal satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Women randomised to immersion in water had a lower rate of epidural analgesia than women allocated to augmentation (47% versus 66%, relative risk 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01), number needed to treat for benefit (NNT) 5). They showed no difference in rates of operative delivery (49% versus 50%, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47), NNT 98), but significantly fewer received augmentation (71% versus 96%, 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88), NNT 4) or any form of obstetric intervention (amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery) (80% versus 98%, 0.81 (0.67 to 0.92), NNT 5). More neonates of women in the water group were admitted to the neonatal unit (6 versus 0, p = 0.013), but there was no difference in Apgar score, infection rates, or umbilical cord pH. CONCLUSIONS: Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy.  
  |