Da Silva 2006.

Methods	Randomisation was computer‐generated, and then recorded on a list (paper copy), where the next allocation was concealed from the research until the next woman had provided consent, was recruited and thus being allocated. Methodological qualities: selection bias: none apparent; performance bias: high risk of bias could have been introduced because researcher could not be blind to group allocation after randomisation; exclusion bias: low risk of bias 4 of 58 in water group did not get water as required CS prior to immersion, and 2 of 56 in control group also required CS prior to reaching cervical dilation of 6 cm Analysed according to ITT; bias conclusion: high risk of bias, where 1 or more criteria are not met may cause plausible bias that seriously weakens confidence in the results.
Participants	Power calculation undertaken Water n = 58 Control n = 56 Full term, nulliparous, live, cephalic presentation, no complications, cervical dilation of 6 cm or less in established labour
Interventions	Immersion in water during first stage of labour Control group received standard care, including cardiotocography on admission, ambulation, amniotomy and oxytocin augmentation if now cervical progress over 3 hours, intermittent auscultation during labour Intervention group as above with immersion in water when cervix had reached 6 cm to 7 cm dilated, for 60 minutes First stage of labour study, all women received 1‐to‐1 care from the researcher Pool was 194 litres, equipped with a heater. Water temperature ranged from 27 to 38 degrees Celsius.
Outcomes	Pain score on 5‐point behavioural scale and numerical pain score from 0 to 10, at 6 cm to 7 cm dilated and again 1 hour later. In addition, the following data were collected: use of augmentation, amniotic liquor conditions, duration of labour, perineal condition, gestational age, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes, maternal and water temperature.
Notes	Study done in Sao Paulo, Brazil Dates of trial: not reported Funding: not reported Declaration of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Each allocation on the list was covered with a tab, which was removed by the researcher after consent form signed by next participant. This description suggests the process could be open to tampering.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	High risk of bias could have been introduced because women, carers and researcher could not blind to group allocation after randomisation due to the nature of the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Flow chart detailed participants from eligibility to completion; no attrition after instigation of allocated care, however not all women received the allocated intervention.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All the data mentioned in the methods, and that would reasonably be expected of this study are reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	All women had 1‐to‐1 care, which is known to affect outcomes, but is common for water immersion care. In this study the care was from the researcher, regardless of group.