Boyle 2002.

Methods	Randomisation was achieved by the use of sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. A computer‐generated random number sequence was used.
Participants	409 women, Hertfordshire, U.K. 199 study participants:145 primigravidae, 54 multigravida 210 control participants:151 primigravidae, 59 multigravida Inclusion Criteria: Parity: mixed, Pluralty: not stated, Gestation: greater than 34 weeks, Onset of labour: spontaneous and induction of labour, Other: cervical dilatation of 3 to 5 cm; in active labour; fetuses in cephalic presentation; uncomplicated pregnancies; women who chose to use a CSE between August 1st 1999 to December 31st 2000. Exclusion Criteria: women who were physically unable to ambulate or could not understand English.
Interventions	Study group: 199 women were assigned to the ambulant group Women in the experimental group were encouraged to ambulate for at least 15 mins in each hour. Midwives used a modified Bromage scale in order to assess maternal mobility after the CSE had been cited and prior to ambulation. The mean time of ambulation in the ambulant group was only 8.74 to 9.55 mins. 69 out of 199 women (34%) underwent induction of labour. Control group: 210 women were assigned to the non‐ambulant group Women in the control group received normal care in labour. 51 out of 210 (24%) women underwent induction of labour. All women: ‐ pain was assessed with a visual analogue pain score.
Outcomes	Maternal Outcomes: Mode of Birth Analgesia Amount Neonatal Outcomes: Nil
Notes	No durations of labour times, but author stated "there was no difference". Mode of birth data totals differ from demographic data totals. Apgar scores reported as means, therefore unable to be used. Pooled data used from nulliparous and multiparous total dose of analgesia.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random number sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Women	High risk	Not feasible.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Clinical staff	High risk	Not feasible.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessor	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No stated losses to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear.