Methods | Quasi-randomised trial. | |
Participants | 116 women (185 women randomised, 116 included in the analyses). Inclusion criteria - women with uneventful pregnancies, full term, spontaneous labours, with a single fetus in cephalic presentation. Exclusion criteria - women received oxytocin augmentation; caesarean section due to cephalo-pelvic disproportion or fetal distress; women requested and received epidural anaesthesia; child with congenital anomalies; tococardiogram records were unsuitable for reading (n = 67 exclusions after group allocation) |
|
Interventions | Amniotomy performed when cervical dilatation reached 3 to 4 cm. Intervention group (sitting): Women free to assume any comfortable position in homelike part of obstetric unit (furnished with desk, chair, sofa but no bed). Most sat on a sofa (back of sofa at 65 degree angle from horizontal) with their knees flexed. When each woman’s cervix became fully dilated, she was transferred to a birthing chair Comparison group (supine): Women to maintain dorsal or lateral recumbent position. No analgesia or anaesthesia used except for pudendal nerve block or perineal infiltration of xylocaine Experimental group (1): sitting position during the entire course of labour (n = 41). Comparison groups (2): supine position in the first stage and birthing chair in the second stage (n = 32); (3): supine position throughout labour (n = 43) |
|
Outcomes | Length of first stage. Type of delivery. Length of second stage. ARM. |
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Item | Authors’ judgement | Description |
Adequate sequence generation? | No | Described as ‘Allocated following the order of their admission into the study’ |
Allocation concealment? | No | Described as ‘Allocated following the order of their admission into the study’ |
Blinding? Women |
No | Not feasible. |
Blinding? Clinical staff |
No | Not feasible. |
Blinding? Outcome assessor |
Unclear | Not stated. |
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes |
No | 67 participants were excluded after group allocation (37%). Some of the reasons for exclusion are unlikely to have related to the intervention (e.g. children born with congenital abnomalities) but other reasons may have related to group allocation (e.g. oxytocin augmentation, caesarean for fetal distress) |