↓ Skip to main content

Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009124.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Lemos, Melania MR Amorim, Armele Dornelas de Andrade, Ariani I de Souza, José Eulálio Cabral Filho, Jailson B Correia

Abstract

Maternal pushing during the second stage of labour is an important and indispensable contributor to the involuntary expulsive force developed by uterine contraction. There is no consensus on an ideal strategy to facilitate these expulsive efforts and there are contradictory results about the influence on the mother and fetus. To evaluate the benefits and possible disadvantages of different kinds of techniques regarding maternal pushing/breathing during the expulsive stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of pushing/bearing down techniques (type and/or timing) performed during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design and those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. In this updated review, we included 21 studies in total, eight (884 women) comparing spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing, with or without epidural analgesia and 13 (2879 women) comparing delayed pushing versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia. Our GRADE assessments of evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality; the main reasons for downgrading were study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias; most were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Comparison 1: types of pushing: spontaneous pushing versus directed pushingThere was no clear difference in the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 10.26 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 21.64 minutes, six studies, 667 women, random-effects, I² = 81%) (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.66, one study, 320 women) (low-quality evidence), episiotomy (average RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.85, two studies, 420 women, random-effects, I² = 81%), duration of pushing (MD -9.76 minutes, 95% CI -19.54 to 0.02; two studies; 169 women; I² = 88%) (very low-quality evidence), or rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05; five studies; 688 women; I² = 2%) (moderate-quality evidence). For primary neonatal outcomes such as five-minute Apgar score less than seven, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.43, one study, 320 infants) (very low-quality evidence), and the number of admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.30 to 3.79, two studies, 393 infants) (very low-quality evidence) also showed no clear difference between spontaneous and directed pushing. No data were available on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Comparison 2: timing of pushing: delayed pushing versus immediate pushing (all women with epidural)For the primary maternal outcomes, delayed pushing was associated with an increase of 56 minutes in the duration of the second stage of labour (MD 56.40, 95% CI 42.05 to 70.76; 11 studies; 3049 women; I² = 91%) (very low-quality evidence), but no clear difference in third or 4th degree perineal laceration (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14, seven studies. 2775 women) (moderate-quality evidence) or episiotomy (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04, five studies, 2320 women). Delayed pushing was also associated with a 19-minute decrease in the duration of pushing (MD -19.05, 95% CI -32.27 to -5.83; 11 studies; 2932 women; I² = 95%) (very low-quality evidence) and an increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, 12 studies, 3114 women) (moderate-quality evidence).For the primary neonatal outcomes, there was no clear difference between groups in admission to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41, three studies, n = 2197) (low-quality evidence) and five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.00; three studies; 413 infants) (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Delayed pushing was associated with a greater incidence of low umbilical cord blood pH (RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.68, 4 studies, 2145 infants) and increased the cost of intrapartum care by CDN$ 68.22 (MD 68.22, 95% CI 55.37, 81.07, one study, 1862 women). This updated review is based on 21 included studies of moderate to very low quality of evidence (with evidence mainly downgraded due to study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates).Timing of pushing with epidural is consistent in that delayed pushing leads to a shortening of the actual time pushing and increase of spontaneous vaginal delivery at the expense of an overall longer duration of the second stage of labour and an increased risk of a low umbilical cord pH (based only on one study). Nevertheless, there was no clear difference in serious perineal laceration and episiotomy, and in other neonatal outcomes (admission to neonatal intensive care, five-minute Apgar score less than seven and delivery room resuscitation) between delayed and immediate pushing.Therefore, for the type of pushing, with or without epidural, there is no conclusive evidence to support or refute any specific style as part of routine clinical practice, and in the absence of strong evidence supporting a specific method or timing of pushing, the woman's preference and comfort and clinical context should guide decisions.Further properly well-designed RCTs, addressing clinically important maternal and neonatal outcomes are required to add evidence-based information to the current knowledge. Such trials will provide more complete data to be incorporated into a future update of this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 22%
Student > Master 32 20%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 11 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 28%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 41 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 03 September 2018.
All research outputs
#469,741
of 14,298,525 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,339
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,633
of 263,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,298,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 263,814 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 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.