Skilnand 2002.

Methods	Single‐blind, randomised controlled trial of acupuncture versus minimal acupuncture. Randomisation was assigned by drawing lots and sealed in opaque envelopes. Women were blind to their group allocation and study personnel collecting data were unaware of women's study group allocation.
Participants	210 women were recruited from the maternity ward of a hospital in Norway. Women with a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, in spontaneous active labour met the inclusion criteria. 110 women refused to participate in the trial.
Interventions	Real acupuncture followed a treatment protocol. The protocol specified obtaining the de qi sensation, needles were taped and left in place until delivery or until conventional analgesics were required. Acupuncture points included Ht 7, LU7, ST30, ST29, GB34, ST36, SP8, SP6, KI3, GB41, LR3, GV20, BL34, BL32, LI$, BL67, BL60. Minimal acupuncture involved the same procedure but needles were inserted away from the meridians. Some needles were removed after 20 minutes if insufficient pain relief was provided by the treatment and control interventions. Conventional pain relief was made available. Midwives providing the intervention had received formal training in acupuncture.
Outcomes	Pain was assessed along a 10 cm VAS, recorded at 30 minutes, 1 and 2 hours after treatment, the need for conventional pain relief and use of oxytocin.
Notes	Two women were excluded from the control group because they delivered prior to the intervention being administered. No power analysis was reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Low risk	A ‐ Adequate

RAT: respiratory autogenic training 
 VAS: visual analogue scale