Study	Reason for exclusion
Bridenbaugh 1969	This study investigated caudal anaesthesia, which is not part of our review.
Bridenbaugh 1977	This study assessed caudal block, which is not part of this review.
Fischer 1971	This study assessing paracervical block with bupivacaine was not randomised.
Gunther 1969	This study assessed caudal block, which is not part of this review.
Gunther 1972	This study assessed caudal block, which is not part of this review.
Hutchins 1980	This study comparing spinal analgesics with puudendal block in women requiring instrumental delivery was a quasi‐randomised study ‐ patients were allocated to the groups on consecutive basis.
Jacob 1962	This study assessed caudal block, which is not part of this review.
Jenssen 1973	This study assessed the effect of PCB on cervical dilatation and uterine activity, and not on pain management in labour.
Jenssen 1975	This study assessed the effect of PCB on amniotic pressure curve, and not on pain management in labour.
Johnson 1957	This study compared caudal analgesia with morphine, which is not a part of our review.
Junttila 2009	This study has been assigned to the epidural review.
Kuah 1968	This study assessed caudal block, which is not part of this review.
Kujansuu 1987	This study has been assigned to the epidural review.
Langhoff‐Roos 1985	This study assessing the effect of pudendal block was quasi‐randomised (consecutive randomisation).
Leighton 1999	This study compared lumbar sympathetic blocks with epidural analgesia, which is not part of our review.
Manninen 2000	This study has been assigned to the epidural review.
Merkow 1980	This study assessed the neonatal neurobehavioral effects of pudendal block with bupivacaine, carbocaine and chloroprocaine, but did not assess pain management in labour.
Nabhan 2009	This study comparing spinal with general anaesthesia for caesarean section and local with a spinal saddle block was quasi‐randomised (patient were recruited consecutively in vaginal delivery group) and caesarean section group included age‐matched women at term.
Nesheim 1979	This study comparing paracervical block with non‐opioid agents used for pain relief in labour assessed the neonatal neurobehavioral effects, but did not assess pain management in labour. All patients in paracervical group received pudendal block as well.
Nyirjesy 1963	This study assessing PCB had large number of drop out (28%) after randomisation due to technical reasons (delivery room was not available for administration of analgesia). It has used random numbers for randomisation, but unequal number of participants in PCB group (95) and control group (338).
Pace 2004	This study has been assigned to the epidural review.
Palomaki 2005b	This study comparing levobupivacaine with racemic bupivacaine for PCB was not randomised and 22% of participants were excluded after randomisation.
Pearce 1982	This study compared the effect of caudal analgesia and pethidine and/or Entonox, which is not a part of our review.
Peterson 1961	This study compared saddle block anaesthesia with dibucaine and lidocaine, which is not a part of our review.
Pitkin 1963	This study assessed various anaesthetic agents used for paracervical and uterosacral blocks. The reasons for exclusion: ‐ the sequence generation was not random. The study was conducted in 5 phases. At least 1 agent was common in all phases (1% lidocaine), specified solutions were packaged in identical 30 mL bottles identified only by a serial number. Each agent was assigned a letter code and within each phase the serial numbers were randomly assigned to the selected letter‐coded solutions in the pharmacy. However, there is no information on how participants were allocated to groups and how allocation concealment was achieved. ‐ the technique of paracervical block differed to others studies, e.g. solutions were injected at 1.5‐2 cm depth in this study, which is different to the conventional technique injecting the solution at 3‐4 mm (more superficial) to achieve the best result. ‐ utero‐sacral block was performed in some instances instead of paracervical block as the authors considered to achieve the same effect. ‐ no information on participants was provided.
Seeds 1962	This study assessing PCB was not randomised.
Teramo 1969	This study assessing fetal acid‐balance and heart rate during labour with bupivacaine PCB was not randomised and did not assess pain relief in labour.
Ulmsten 1980	This study assessed use of ketocaine skin compress to sterile water skin compress, which is not part of our review. Local anaesthetic skin compress is not a nerve block, topical anaesthesia.
Westholm 1970	This study assessing the use of bupivacaine with and without adrenaline for PCB was not randomised.

PCB: paracervical block