Dataset Information

Effects of non-pharmacological coping strategies for reducing labor pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Facilitating the childbirth process is a global issue. Many strategies have been developed to cope with labor pain and improve the delivery experience and satisfaction of pregnant women. The results of different types of medical intervention on women's expectant pain have been varied. Therefore, this systematic review was aimed at summarizing the body of evidence regarding the effects of various non-pharmacological coping strategies for reducing labor pain.

Methods

The review was conducted according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We systematically searched the articles published between 1989 and 2020 in six electronic databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, WOS, PsycARTICLES, and Airiti Library, and the reference lists of the Clinical Trial Registry. Twenty studies were identified, with eight eligible studies included in the Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with 713 participants were included in the meta-analysis with nine different non-pharmacological strategies for reducing labor pain. The traditional meta-analysis demonstrated that the non-pharmacological coping strategies were effective in reducing labor pain. Of these interventional strategies, the ranking probabilities analysis of the network meta-analysis suggested that the Bonapace Method may be the most effective strategy in reducing labor pain, followed by acupressure.

Conclusions

Non-pharmacological coping strategies can reduce labor pain while maintaining an effective and satisfactory delivery experience. This systematic review, by synthesizing the body of evidence, demonstrated that non-pharmacological coping strategies are effective in reducing labor pain. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the network meta-analysis, the Bonapace Method, modulating birth pain by involving the father, is the most effective non-pharmacological intervention for reducing labor pain.

SUBMITTER: Chang CY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8782482 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. METHODS:We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. DISCUSSION:While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115.

Project description:IntroductionIt is unclear how pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions compare with each other in terms of efficacy and tolerability for core symptoms and additional problems in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aim to conduct the first network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (or their combinations) in adults with ADHD.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for NMAs. We will search a broad set of electronic databases/registries and contact drug companies and experts in the field to retrieve published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel or cross-over) of medications (either licensed or unlicensed) and any non-pharmacological intervention in adults (≥18 years) with ADHD. Primary outcomes will be: (1) change in severity of ADHD core symptoms, and (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes will include tolerability (drop-out due to side effects) and change in the severity of emotional dysregulation, executive dysfunctions and quality of life. The risk of bias in each individual RCT included in the NMA will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2. We will evaluate the transitivity assumption comparing the distribution of possible effect modifiers across treatment comparisons. We will perform Bayesian NMA for each outcome with random-effects model in OpenBUGS. Pooled estimates of NMA will be obtained using the Markov Chains Monte Carlo method. We will judge the credibility in the evidence derived from the NMA using the CINeMA tool (which includes assessment of publication bias). We will conduct a series of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings.Ethics and disseminationAs this is the protocol for an aggregate-data level NMA, ethical approval will not be required. Results will be disseminated at national/international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Prospero registration numberCRD42021265576.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.ResultsEighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.ConclusionCompared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.