Hamlaci 2017.

Methods	Parallel randomised controlled trial of 44 women.
Participants	Pregnant women between 37 and 40 weeks of gestation by ultrasonography, singleton pregnancy, fetal weight of 2500 g to 4000 g according to ultrasonography, had no complications during pregnancy (threatened abortion, hyperemesis gravidarum, etc), had no systemic diseases during pregnancy (gestational diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, etc), spontaneous onset of labour, cervical dilation less than 5 cm, and had planned a vaginal delivery.
Interventions	1. Study group: Point LI‐4 was located, then acupressure was applied when cervical dilatation reached 4 cm to 5 cm and again when dilation reached 7 cm to 8 cm. In the first and second applications, acupressure was applied to acupoint LI‐4 on both hands at the same time from the beginning to the end of the contraction. Acupressure was applied 16 times during uterine contraction, 8 times at 4 cm to 5 cm of cervical dilatation and 8 times at 7 cm to 8 cm cervical dilatation. Acupressure was applied by placing thumbs on both hands. The mean pressure applied was approximately 3 kg to 5 kg, and this amount was ascertained by the researcher. The first application took approximately 1 hour. The second application took 30 minutes. Acupressure was applied by the researcher in the pregnant woman’s room during labour. It was applied in the active phase of the birth and in the periods of increased labour pain intensity as the most important time for pain management. 2. Control group: pregnant women were given no acupressure or treatment other than routine care. Except for the acupressure practice given to the acupressure group, the researcher gave the participants in both groups equal care throughout the labour.
Outcomes	Pain as measured by VAS.
Notes	Study duration: 1 June 2012 to 30 September 2012. Funding: not stated. Conflict of interest: authors state there are no conflicts of interest. Setting: maternity hospital. Country: Turkey.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Lottery method used.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelope.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and clinician not blinded. Interventions were substantially different and obvious to an observer.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Researcher also performed outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcome data accounted for.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available. Limited study outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Nil.