Comparison 5. Acupressure versus usual care.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Caesarean section	2	151	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.68, 1.53]
1.1 Acupressure versus usual care	2	151	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.02 [0.68, 1.53]
2 Epidural analgesia	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.49, 1.69]
2.1 Acupressure versus usual care	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.49, 1.69]
3 Apgar score less than seven at five minutes	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 69.87]
3.1 Acupressure versus usual care	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 69.87]
4 Neonatal intensive care unit admission	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.6 [0.16, 2.21]
4.1 Acupressure versus usual care	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.6 [0.16, 2.21]
5 Time from trial intervention to birth of baby (hours)	1	107	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.72 [‐12.00, 35.44]
5.1 Acupressure versus usual care	1	107	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.72 [‐12.00, 35.44]
6 Use of other induction methods	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.64, 2.35]
6.1 Acupressure versus usual care	1	44	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.64, 2.35]
7 Spontaneous vaginal birth	2	151	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.69, 1.34]
7.1 Acupressure versus usual care	2	151	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.69, 1.34]