Dataset Information

Labour Q1 pain - poorly analysed and reported: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Modelling and analysing repeated measures data, such as women's experiences of pain during labour, is a complex topic. Traditional end-point analyses such as t-tests, ANOVA, or repeated measures [rANOVA] have known disadvantages. Modern and more sophisticated statistical methods such as mixed effect models provide flexibility and are more likely to draw correct conclusions from data. The aim of this study is to study how labour pain is analysed in repeated measures design studies, and to increase awareness of when and why modern statistical methods are suitable with the aim of encouraging their use in preference of traditional methods.

Methods

Six databases were searched with the English language as a restriction. Study eligibility criteria included: Original studies published between 1999 and 2016, studying pregnant women in labour with the aim to compare at least two methods for labour pain management, with at least two measurements of labour pain separated by time, and where labour pain was analysed. After deduplication, all records (n?=?2800) were screened by one of the authors who excluded ineligible publication types, leaving 737 records remaining for full-text screening. A sample of 309 studies was then randomly selected and screened by both authors.

Results

Among the 133 (of 309) studies that fulfilled the study eligibility criteria, 7% used mixed effect models, 20% rANOVA, and 73% used end-point analysis to draw conclusions regarding treatment effects for labour pain between groups. The most commonly used end-point analyses to compare groups regarding labour pain were t-tests (57, 43%) and ANOVA (41, 31%). We present a checklist for clinicians to clarify when mixed effect models should be considered as the preferred choice for analysis, in particular when labour pain is measured.

Conclusions

Studies that aim to compare methods for labour pain management often use inappropriate statistical methods, and inaccurately report how the statistical analyses were carried out. The statistical methods used in analyses are often based on assumptions that are not fulfilled or described. We recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors pay greater attention to the analysis when designing and publishing studies evaluating methods for pain relief during labour.

SUBMITTER: Jarnbert-Pettersson H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6286546 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Labour Q1 pain - poorly analysed and reported: a systematic review.

Järnbert-Pettersson Hans H Vixner Linda L

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20181207 1

<h4>Background</h4>Modelling and analysing repeated measures data, such as women's experiences of pain during labour, is a complex topic. Traditional end-point analyses such as t-tests, ANOVA, or repeated measures [rANOVA] have known disadvantages. Modern and more sophisticated statistical methods such as mixed effect models provide flexibility and are more likely to draw correct conclusions from data. The aim of this study is to study how labour pain is analysed in repeated measures design stud ...[more]

PMID: 30526516

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLabour pain has been identified as an important reason for women to prefer caesarean section (CS). Fentanyl is one of the short acting opioids recommended by World Health Organization for pain relief during labour. This study aimed to identify and describe the available evidence on the use of fentanyl (monotherapy) for labour pain management by any routes of administration or regime.MethodsWe included the records published until 31 December 2021 which reported administration of fentanyl to women with normal labour for labour pain relief. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer using a standardised agreement form. We mapped and presented data descriptively in figure and tabular format.ResultsWe included 51 records from 49 studies in our scoping review. The studies were conducted in 12 countries, mostly high-income countries. The study designs of the 51 included records were varied as follows: 38 (74.5%) experimental studies (35 randomised controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies), and 12 (23.5%) observational studies (five retrospective cohort studies, four prospective cohort studies, two retrospective descriptive studies, and one descriptive study) and one qualitative study. Of the included records, six used intranasal fentanyl, five used subcutaneous fentanyl, 18 (35.3%) used intravenous fentanyl, 18 (35.3%) used intrathecal fentanyl, and nine used epidural fentanyl. Many records compared fentanyl with another analgesic agent while five records (9.8%) had no comparison group and seven records (13.7%) compared with no analgesia group. The doses of fentanyl varied by routes, study and the requirement depended on the women. Pain assessment was the most frequent outcome measure presented in the records (78.4%). Only nine records (17.6%) investigated women's satisfaction about labour pain relief using fentanyl and seven records (13.7%) reported the effect of fentanyl on breastfeeding. The most common reported neonatal outcomes were foetal heart rate (33 records, 64.7%) and Apgar score (32 records, 62.7%).ConclusionThere is limited primary evidence especially randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of different routes of fentanyl in low- or middle-income countries. There is a need for high-quality research to establish the most effective route of fentanyl and associated effects for evidence-based international guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundChildbirth is one of the most painful events that a woman is likely to experience, the multi-dimensional aspect and intensity of which far exceeds disease conditions. A woman's lack of knowledge about the risks and benefits of the various methods of pain relief can heighten anxiety. Women are increasingly expected, and are expecting, to participate in decisions about their healthcare. Involvement should allow women to make better-informed decisions; the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has stated that we need effective ways of supporting pregnant women in making informed decisions during labour. Our aim was to systematically review the empirical literature on women's expectations and experiences of pain and pain relief during labour, as well as their involvement in the decision-making process.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Bath Information and Database Service (BIDS), Excerpta Medica Database Guide (EMBASE), Midwives Information and Resource (MIDIRS), Sociological Abstracts and PsychINFO. Studies that examined experience and expectations of pain, and its relief in labour, were appraised and the findings were integrated into a systematic review.ResultsAppraisal revealed four key themes: the level and type of pain, pain relief, involvement in decision-making and control. Studies predominantly showed that women underestimated the pain they would experience. Women may hope for a labour free of pain relief, but many found that they needed or benefited from it. There is a distinction between women's desire for a drug-free labour and the expectation that they may need some sort of pain relief. Inaccurate or unrealistic expectations about pain may mean that women are not prepared appropriately for labour. Many women acknowledged that they wanted to participate in decision-making, but the degree of involvement varied. Women expected to take control in labour in a number of ways, but their degree of reported control was less than hoped for.ConclusionWomen may have ideal hopes of what they would like to happen with respect to pain relief, control and engagement in decision-making, but experience is often very different from expectations. Antenatal educators need to ensure that pregnant women are appropriately prepared for what might actually happen to limit this expectation-experience gap and potentially support greater satisfaction with labour.

Project description:Introduction and hypothesisPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are helpful instruments when measuring and reporting changes in patient health status (Al Sayah et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes 5 (Suppl 2):99, 2021) such as the health-related quality of life (HrQoL) of women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) aims to increase capacity for women to report surgical outcomes through the collection of HrQoL data (Ruseckaite et al. Qual Life Res. 2021) but currently lacks a pain-specific PROM for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), particularly POP and SUI. This review aims to systematically review the existing literature and identify instruments that measure pain in women with POP and SUI for inclusion within the APFPR, which reports on complications from these conditions.MethodsWe conducted a literature search on OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EMCARE databases in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature to identify studies from inception to April 2021. Full-text studies were included if they used PROMs to measure pain in women with POP and SUI. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed methodological quality.ResultsFrom 2001 studies, 23 publications describing 19 different PROMs were included for analysis. Eight of these instruments were specific to the pelvic floor; four were only specific to pain and used across multiple disorders; three were generic quality of life instruments and four were other non-validated instruments such as focus group interviews. These instruments were not specific to pain in women with POP or SUI, as they did not identify all relevant domains such as the sensation, region and duration of pain, or incidents where onset of pain occurs.ConclusionsThe findings of this review suggest there are no current PROMs that are suitable pain-specific instruments for women with POP or SUI. This knowledge may inform and assist in the development of a new PROM to be implemented into the APFPR.

Project description:Prostaglandins are thought to be important mediators in the initiation of human labour, however the evidence supporting this is not entirely clear. Determining how, and which, prostaglandins change during pregnancy and labour may provide insight into mechanisms governing labour initiation and the potential to predict timing of labour onset. The current study systematically searched the existing scientific literature to determine how biofluid levels of prostaglandins change throughout pregnancy before and during labour, and whether prostaglandins and/or their metabolites may be useful for prediction of labour. The databases EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for English-language articles on prostaglandins measured in plasma, serum, amniotic fluid, or urine during pregnancy and/or spontaneous labour. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias and a qualitative summary of included studies was generated. Our review identified 83 studies published between 1968-2021 that met the inclusion criteria. As measured in amniotic fluid, levels of PGE2, along with PGF2α and its metabolite 13,14-dihydro-15-keto-PGF2α were reported higher in labour compared to non-labour. In blood, only 13,14-dihydro-15-keto-PGF2α was reported higher in labour. Additionally, PGF2α, PGF1α, and PGE2 were reported to increase in amniotic fluid as pregnancy progressed, though this pattern was not consistent in plasma. Overall, the evidence supporting changes in prostaglandin levels in these biofluids remains unclear. An important limitation is the lack of data on the complexity of the prostaglandin pathway outside of the PGE and PGF families. Future studies using new methodologies capable of co-assessing multiple prostaglandins and metabolites, in large, well-defined populations, will help provide more insight as to the identification of exactly which prostaglandins and/or metabolites consistently change with labour. Revisiting and revising our understanding of the prostaglandins may provide better targets for clinical monitoring of pregnancies. This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of prostaglandins used for labour induction.DesignSystematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysisData sourcesThe Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Database of Trials (which incorporates the results of a broad generic search for all pregnancy and postpartum trials). Sources included are CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, relevant journals, conference proceedings, and registries of ongoing trials.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised clinical trials of prostaglandin or prostaglandin analogues used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction versus placebo or no treatment, alternative prostaglandin dose or administration, or a different type of prostaglandin. We included studies recruiting women with a viable fetus, but had no other restrictions relating to indication for labour induction or language of publication. Outcomes assessed were serious neonatal morbidity (trialist defined) or perinatal death; serious maternal morbidity (trialist defined) or death; vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, caesarean section, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes.Results280 randomised clinical trials were included (48 068 women) in the review. Maternal and neonatal mortality and serious morbidity were rarely reported and are summarized narratively. Unresolved inconsistency was observed for the hyperstimulation outcome. Relative to placebo, the odds of failing to achieve a vaginal delivery were lowest for vaginal misoprostol (≥50 µg) (odds ratio 0.06 (95% credible interval 0.02 to 0.12)), with a 39% absolute probability of event (95% credible interval 1% to 94%). Compared with placebo, odds of caesarean section were lowest for titrated oral misoprostol solution (<50 µg) (odds ratio 0.65 (0.49 to 0.83)), with an absolute probability of event of 15% (3% to 40%).ConclusionsLow dose(<50 µg) titrated oral misoprostol solution had the lowest probability of caesarean section, whereas vaginal misprostol (≥50 µg) had the highest probability of achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 hours. These findings have important implications for a series of current national and international guidelines for induction of labour and future research in this area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2013:CRD42013005116.

Project description:BackgroundThe proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.MethodsA systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.Results68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.ConclusionsWhile for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.

Dataset Information

Labour Q1 pain - poorly analysed and reported: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Labour Q1 pain - poorly analysed and reported: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets