Dabiri 2014.

Methods	3‐arm parallel randomised controlled trial of 149 women.
Participants	Singleton pregnant women at a gestational age of 37–42 weeks, cephalic presentation, 4 cm to 5 cm cervical dilatation with spontaneous onset of labour, and with no history of previous high‐risk pregnancy, caesarean section, cephalopelvic disproportion, or narcotic use within the past 8 hours were included in the study.
Interventions	1. In the acupressure group, a trained and registered midwife, certificated in the acupressure method, performed the treatment. Pressure was applied bilaterally within the contraction on Hegu point (LI4), Prior to applying pressure the patient was asked to take a deep breath then a rotational and vibration pressure was applied for 60 seconds, she then received a 60‐second rest, and pressure was repeated. This cycle continued for 30 minutes. Accurate location of the acupoint was confirmed when the participants felt heaviness, pressure, tingling, or numbness in the area or a pleasant feeling. If the participant reported feeling severe pain at the site of pressure, the pressure was stopped temporarily and commenced after a few minutes. The sign of the intensity of the pressure was partial discolouration of the nail bed to white 2. In the touching group, the same point was touched but with no pressure applied. The 30‐minute intervention time used is based on acupressure theory, which says the time needed to turn the energy in the body’s energy circuits is about 24 minutes. 3. Control. Received usual care
Outcomes	Pain intensity was measured using the VAS. Pain intensity was measured before and several times after the intervention at 30 minutes, 1 hour and every hour after intervention until the end of first stage of labour.
Notes	Study duration: October 2011 to April 2012. Funding: not stated. Conflict of interest: authors declared there are no conflicts of interest. Setting: maternity setting. Country: Iran.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Lot drawing.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed in envelope.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Control group received placebo, usual care not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Author clarification that outcome assessor was blinded to group allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Incomplete data accounted for. ITT analysis included.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available and limited relevant outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to report.