Reinhard 2012.

Methods	RCT comparing 2 interventions (clinical hypnosis or NLP) (a control group receiving no intervention was used as a historical comparison – data for this group have not been included in the review). Single‐centre, stratified by parity.
Participants	Control group. From January 1, 2009, to October 31, 2010, a control group were all ECVs, during which time neither hypnosis nor NLP was used. These data will not be included. Setting: a tertiary university hospital in Germany. Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital in Frankfurt am Main. Inclusion criteria: pregnant women with a singleton fetus in a breech position at the scheduled date of the ECV at or after 370/7 (259 days) weeks' gestation, normal amniotic fluid index, with advanced level of German language. N = 80. Exclusion criteria: women in active labour (regular uterine contractions and rupture of membranes), contraindications for a vaginal birth (such as placenta praevia) and planned birth by caesarean section even if the fetus turned to a cephalic position.
Interventions	Experimental intervention: hypnosis. 20‐Minute standardized clinical hypnosis intervention via head phones (Bose, QuietComfort 15) before ECV procedure was carried out. Hypnosis intervention was a voice recording of one of the trialists (a certified hypnotherapist who underwent training in the fundamentals of NLP). A relaxation induction was utilised, in which the therapist focused on breathing and concentrated on various parts of the body for trance deepening. N = 42. Control/Comparison intervention: neurolinguistic programming. 20‐Minute standardised NLP intervention via head phones (Bose, QuietComfort 15) before ECV procedure was carried out. Hypnosis intervention was a voice recording of 1 of the trialists (a certified hypnotherapist who underwent training in the fundamentals of NLP). N = 38.
Outcomes	ECV success; women’s views (results reported as means derived from Likert 6‐point scale).
Notes	We contacted the study author for more information re the NLP intervention and received additional information.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Off‐centre randomisation sequence based on block randomisation was calculated and assigned by the Institute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation at the point of randomisation was not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intervention was double‐blinded, that is, the participant and the clinician who carried out the ECV procedure did not know the kind of intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intervention was double‐blinded, that is, the participant and the clinician who carried out the ECV procedure did not know the kind of intervention.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No loss to follow‐up evident after randomisation.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We did not assess trial protocol.
Other bias	Low risk	Other bias not apparent.