↓ Skip to main content

Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003928.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meaghan E Coyle, Caroline Smith, Brian Peat

Abstract

Breech presentation at term can cause complications during birth and increase the chance of caesarean section. Moxibustion (a type of Chinese medicine which involves burning a herb close to the skin) at the acupuncture point Bladder 67 (BL67) (Chinese name Zhiyin), located at the tip of the fifth toe, has been proposed as a way of changing breech presentation to cephalic presentation. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last published in 2012. To examine the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion on changing the presentation of an unborn baby in the breech position, the need for external cephalic version (ECV), mode of birth, and perinatal morbidity and mortality. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (4 November 2021). We also searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase and MIDIRS (inception to 3 November 2021), and the reference lists of retrieved studies. The inclusion criteria were published and unpublished randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing moxibustion either alone or in combination with other techniques (e.g. acupuncture or postural techniques) with a control group (no moxibustion) or other methods (e.g. acupuncture, postural techniques) in women with a singleton breech presentation. Two review authors independently determined trial eligibility, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Outcome measures were baby's presentation at birth, need for ECV, mode of birth, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and maternal satisfaction, and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.   MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 13 studies (2181 women), of which six trials are new. Most studies used adequate methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Blinding of participants and personnel is challenging with a manual therapy intervention; however, the use of objective outcomes meant that the lack of blinding was unlikely to affect the results. Most studies reported little or no loss to follow-up, and few trial protocols were available. One study that was terminated early was judged as high risk for other sources of bias. Meta-analysis showed that compared to usual care alone, the combination of moxibustion plus usual care probably reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth (7 trials, 1152 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.99, I2 = 38%; moderate-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of moxibustion plus usual care on the need for ECV (4 trials, 692 women; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.21, I2 = 78%; low-certainty evidence) because the CIs included both appreciable benefit and moderate harm. Adding moxibustion to usual care probably has little to no effect on the chance of caesarean section (6 trials, 1030 women; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of moxibustion plus usual care on the the chance of premature rupture of membranes (3 trials, 402 women; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.17 to 10.21, I2 = 59%; low-certainty evidence) because there were very few data. Moxibustion plus usual care probably reduces the use of oxytocin (1 trial, 260 women; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the chance of cord blood pH less than 7.1 (1 trial, 212 women; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.38; low-certainty evidence) because there were very few data. We are very uncertain whether the combination of moxibustion plus usual care increases the chance of adverse events (including nausea, unpleasant odour, abdominal pain and uterine contractions; intervention: 27/65, control: 0/57), as only one study presented data in a way that could be reanalysed (122 women; RR 48.33, 95% CI 3.01 to 774.86; very low-certainty evidence). When moxibustion plus usual care was compared with sham moxibustion plus usual care, we found that moxibustion probably reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth (1 trial, 272 women; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably results in little to no effect on the rate of caesarean section (1 trial, 272 women; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). No study that compared moxibustion plus usual care with sham moxibustion plus usual care reported on the clinically important outcomes of need for ECV, premature rupture of membranes, use of oxytocin, and cord blood pH less than 7.1, and one trial that reported adverse events reported data for the whole sample. When moxibustion was combined with acupuncture and usual care, there was very little evidence about the effect of the combination on non-cephalic presentation at birth (1 trial, 226 women; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94) and at the end of treatment (2 trials, 254 women; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93), and on the need for ECV (1 trial, 14 women; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.01). There was very little evidence about whether moxibustion plus acupuncture plus usual care reduced the chance of caesarean section (2 trials, 240 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99) or pre-eclampsia (1 trial, 14 women; RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 104.15). The certainty of the evidence for this comparison was not assessed. We found moderate-certainty evidence that moxibustion plus usual care probably reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth, but uncertain evidence about the need for ECV. Moderate-certainty evidence from one study shows that moxibustion plus usual care probably reduces the use of oxytocin before or during labour. However, moxibustion plus usual care probably results in little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section, and we are uncertain about its effects on the chance of premature rupture of membranes and cord blood pH less than 7.1.  Adverse events were inadequately reported in most trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Researcher 10 10%
Unspecified 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Unspecified 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,228,139
of 25,218,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,618
of 13,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,925
of 389,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,218,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.