A meta-analysis of upright positions in the second stage to reduce instrumental deliveries in women with epidural analgesia

Variability of clinical practice in the care of the second stage of labor among midwives in Spain

BACKGROUND

There are recommendations based on scientific evidence on care in the second stage of labor, but it is not known to what degree the professionals comply with these recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the variability in clinical practices among midwives during the second stage of labor, including positions, mobility, practices, and the maximum time allowed before initiating active pushing, and to assess their adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study. A self-designed questionnaire was developed and distributed online through scientific societies. The main variables studied were professional and work environment characteristics, maternal positions and mobility, practices during this stage, maximum time to start active pushing and duration of the second stage of labor. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS 24.0.

RESULTS

Regarding the woman's position during childbirth, 80.3% (245) of midwives frequently or always allow the woman to choose her birthing position. Furthermore, 44.6% (136) of professionals prefer using side-lying positions for the mother. Regarding drinking fluids during childbirth, 51.1% (156) of midwives allowed the woman to drink the amount of liquids she wanted, whereas 11.1% (34) said that they would allow them to do so however, this was against the protocol of their hospital. When inquiring about the Kristeller maneuver, it was reported to be excessively performed in 35.1% (107) of cases for fetal bradycardia, 33.1% (101) for maternal exhaustion, and 38.4% (117) to avoid instrumental birth. Finally, a great variability was observed in the time criteria used for the initiation of active pushing and the maximum duration of the second stage of labor.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain practices, such as the Kristeller maneuver, are overused among midwives, with great variability in the use of certain procedures, the waiting times to initiate pushing and completion of the second stage of labor. Further training and awareness campaigns are needed for professionals to apply evidence-based care.

The second stage of labor

The second stage of labor extends from complete cervical dilatation to delivery. During this stage, descent and rotation of the presenting part occur as the fetus passively negotiates its passage through the birth canal. Generally, descent begins during the deceleration phase of dilatation as the cervix is drawn upward around the fetal presenting part. The most common means of assessing the normality of the second stage of labor is to measure its duration, but progress can be more meaningfully gauged by measuring the change in fetal station as a function of time. Accurate clinical identification and evaluation of differences in patterns of fetal descent are necessary to assess second stage of labor progress and to make reasoned judgments about the need for intervention. Three distinct graphic abnormalities of the second stage of labor can be identified: protracted descent, arrest of descent, and failure of descent. All abnormalities have a strong association with cephalopelvic disproportion but may also occur in the presence of maternal obesity, uterine infection, excessive sedation, and fetal malpositions. Interpretation of the progress of fetal descent must be made in the context of other clinically discernable events and observations. These include fetal size, position, attitude, and degree of cranial molding and related evaluations of pelvic architecture and capacity to accommodate the fetus, uterine contractility, and fetal well-being. Oxytocin infusion can often resolve an arrest or failure of descent or a protracted descent caused by an inhibitory factor, such as a dense neuraxial block. It should be used only if thorough assessment of fetopelvic relationships reveals a low probability of cephalopelvic disproportion. The value of forced Valsalva pushing, fundal pressure, and routine episiotomy has been questioned. They should be used selectively and where indicated.

Benefits and risks of upright positions during the second stage of labour: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Upright positions during the second stage of labour are assumed to have many physiological advantages that may facilitate normal birth. Clarifying the underlying benefits and risks of upright positions plays an important role in the implementation of upright positions. The benefits and risks of upright positions during the second stage of labour have been explored in several systematic reviews, but the results are divergent.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the underlying benefits and risks of upright positions during the second stage of labour by searching available systematic reviews to explore the best evidence for clinical practice and decision making.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched five English databases and four Chinese databases from inception to 15th March 2020 for any published and ongoing systematic reviews.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological and the reporting quality of the included systematic reviews using the AMSTAR 2 tool and the PRISMA checklist. A descriptive synthesis was used by reporting the results of the highest quality reviews.

RESULTS

Seven systematic reviews met the eligibility criteria, of which two Cochrane reviews had the highest methodological and reporting quality. In women without epidural analgesia, upright positions significantly reduced the rate of instrumental vaginal birth (moderate-quality evidence), shortened the second stage of labour (very low-quality evidence), reduced the rate of episiotomy (very low-quality evidence) and abnormal foetal heart rate patterns requiring intervention (very low-quality evidence), but significantly increased the risk of blood loss greater than 500 ml (moderate-quality evidence) and second-degree perineal trauma (low-quality evidence). However, no definite benefits or risks of upright positions were found in women with epidural analgesia based on the current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This overview demonstrates that upright positions have both benefits and risks but the quality of the current evidence is relatively low. It is necessary for the researchers to conduct robust studies to provide stronger evidence. In addition, upright positions are recommended to be used depending on women's preferences and labour progress, but should also be carefully monitored especially in women with epidural analgesia. Registration number: CRD42020175820.

Effects of flexible sacrum positions during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flexible sacrum positions on mode of delivery, duration of the second stage of labour, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, maternal pain, abnormal foetal heart rate patterns and Apgar scores based on published literature.

BACKGROUND

Maternal positions served as a nonmedical intervention may facilitate optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes during labour. Flexible sacrum positions are conducive to expanding pelvic outlet. Whether flexible sacrum positions have positive effects on maternal and neonatal well-being is a controversial issue under heated discussion.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on PRISMA guidelines.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any flexible sacrum position with non-flexible sacrum position in the second stage of labour were included. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), SinoMed and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to 11 March 2019 for published RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane criteria, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (3,397 women) published in English were included. Flexible sacrum positions in the second stage of labour could reduce the incidence of operative delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, caesarean section, episiotomy, severe perineal trauma, severe pain and shorten the duration of active pushing phase in the second stage of labour. However, flexible sacrum positions may increase the incidence of mild perineal trauma. There was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage of labour, maternal satisfaction and other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible sacrum positions are superior in promoting maternal well-being during childbirth. However, several results require careful interpretation. More rigorous original studies are needed to further explore their effects.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results support the use of flexible sacrum positions. Flexible sacrum positions are recommended to apply flexibly or tailor to individual woman's labour progress.

Vertical Delivery as a Method of Prevention of Obstetric and Perinatal Complications

Currently, there are many points of view on management of physiological labor, in particular, it concerns the intrapartum position of a woman. Tactics of modern obstetrics should ensure the safety of motherhood, which in future ensures the prosperity of the state. One of the alternative methods of delivery is the vertical position of a woman in the intrapartum period. It is impossible to describe the whole range of possible positions of a woman in the intrapartum period, the common ones being: lying position (lateral, reclining, lithotomy, Trendelenburg’s, etc.) or upright position (sitting, using a chair for childbirth, standing, squatting, standing on the knees, etc.). Opinions about how the vertical position of a mother in the intrapartum period affects the outcome of childbirth are quite ambiguous. The conclusions of various authors on that matter often contradict each other.The aim of the research was to study the role of vertical delivery in reducing the frequency of obstetric and perinatal complications.Materials: publications of foreign and domestic authors within the period from 1989 to 2017.Methods: systematic analysis and synthesis of literature data.Conclusion: Despite a significant number of studies, it is not possible to determine the universality of the vertical position in childbirth, therefore, the selection of patients for the management of vertical childbirth should be approached carefully. In the presence of pregnancy complications, preference should be given to the classic version of the position in childbirth. In women who have a low risk of perinatal complications, an upright position can be a worthy alternative. To prevent the development of bleeding in the III stage of labor and the early postpartum period, a woman should take a horizontal position after the birth of the fetus. This condition must also be observed when examining the birth canal. Thus, the rational tactics of conducting childbirth is to determine the optimal combination of vertical and horizontal positions at different periods of the childbirth process, taking into account the convenience for the woman in labor. 

Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether being upright in the second stage of labour in nulliparous women with a low dose epidural increases the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth compared with lying down.Design Multicentre pragmatic individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 41 UK hospital labour wards.Participants 3093 nulliparous women aged 16 or older, at term with a singleton cephalic presentation and in the second stage of labour with epidural analgesia.Interventions Women were allocated to an upright or lying down position, using a secure web based randomisation service, stratified by centre, with no masking of participants or clinicians to the trial interventions.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal birth. Women were analysed in the groups into which they were randomly allocated, regardless of position recorded at any time during the second stage of labour (excluding women with no valid consent, who withdrew, or who did not reach second stage before delivery). Secondary outcomes included mode of birth, perineal trauma, infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes, admission to a neonatal unit, and longer term included maternal physical and psychological health, incontinence, and infant gross developmental delay. Results Between 4 October 2010 and 31 January 2014, 3236 women were randomised and 3093 (95.6%) included in the primary analysis (1556 in the upright group and 1537 in the lying down group). Significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births occurred in women in the upright group: 35.2% (548/1556) compared with 41.1% (632/1537) in the lying down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). This represents a 5.9% absolute increase in the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth in the lying down group (number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 11 to 40). No evidence of differences was found for most of the secondary maternal, neonatal, or longer term outcomes including instrumental vaginal delivery (adjusted risk ratio 1.08, 99% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.18), obstetric anal sphincter injury (1.27, 0.88 to 1.84), infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes (0.66, 0.06 to 6.88), and maternal faecal incontinence at one year (1.18, 0.61 to 2.28).Conclusions Evidence shows that lying down in the second stage of labour results in more spontaneous vaginal births in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in relation to short or longer term outcomes for mother or baby.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright and recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-RCTs would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Studies published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted study authors to try to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions were included in this updated review. Four trials were conducted in the UK and one in France. Three of the five trials were funded by the hospital departments in which the trials were carried out. For the other three trials, funding sources were either unclear (one trial) or not reported (two trials). Each trial varied in levels of bias. We assessed all the trials as being at low or unclear risk of selection bias. None of the trials blinded women, staff or outcome assessors. One trial was poor quality, being at high risk of attrition and reporting bias. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach; the evidence for most outcomes was assessed as being very low quality, and evidence for one outcome was judged as moderate quality.Overall, we identified no clear difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women; I² = 54% moderate-quality evidence), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation-to-birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women; I² = 92%; very low-quality evidence). Nor did we identify any clear differences in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; two trials; 173 women; studies = two; I² = 74%; very low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69; 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; one trial; 107 women; very low-quality evidence), low cord pH (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.18 to 2.10; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence) or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out. Outcomes were downgraded for study design, high heterogeneity and imprecision in effect estimates.There were no data reported on blood loss (greater than 500 mL), prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. The GRADE quality assessment of the evidence in this review ranged between moderate to low quality, with downgrading decisions based on design limitations in the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision of effect estimates.Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour.More studies with larger sample sizes will need to be conducted in order for solid conclusions to be made about the effect of position on labour in women with an epidural. Two studies are ongoing and we will incorporate the results into this review at a future update.Future studies should have the protocol registered, so that sample size, primary outcome, analysis plan, etc. are all clearly prespecified. The time or randomisation should be recorded, since this is the only unbiased starting time point from which the effect of position on duration of labour can be estimated. Future studies might wish to include an arm in which women were allowed to choose the position in which they felt most comfortable. Future studies should ensure that both compared positions are acceptable to women, that women can remain in them for most of the late part of labour, and report the number of women who spend time in the allocated position and the amount of time they spend in this or other positions.

Women's choice of positions during labour: return to the past or a modern way to give birth? A cohort study in Italy

Background. Childbirth medicalization has reduced the parturient's opportunity to labour and deliver in a spontaneous position, constricting her to assume the recumbent one. The aim of the study was to compare recumbent and alternative positions in terms of labour process, type of delivery, neonatal wellbeing, and intrapartum fetal head rotation. Methods. We conducted an observational cohort study on women at pregnancy term. Primiparous women with physiological pregnancies and single cephalic fetuses were eligible for the study. We considered data about maternal-general characteristics, labour process, type of delivery, and neonatal wellbeing at birth. Patients were divided into two groups: Group-A if they spent more than 50% of labour in a recumbent position and Group-B when in alternative ones. Results. 225 women were recruited (69 in Group-A and 156 in Group-B). We found significant differences between the groups in terms of labour length, Numeric Rating Scale score and analgesia request rate, type of delivery, need of episiotomy, and fetal occiput rotation. No differences were found in terms of neonatal outcomes. Conclusion. Alternative maternal positioning may positively influence labour process reducing maternal pain, operative vaginal delivery, caesarean section, and episiotomy rate. Women should be encouraged to move and deliver in the most comfortable position.

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright versus recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors to try to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, were included in the review.Overall, we identified no statistically significant difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation to birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women). Nor did we identify any clear differences in the incidence of instrumental birth or caesarean section separately, nor in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing, operative birth for fetal distress, low cord pH or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out.There were no data reported on excess blood loss, prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.

When and how to push: providing the most current information about second-stage labor to women during childbirth education

Childbirth educators can have a significant impact on safe care for mothers and babies during the second stage of labor. In this guest editorial, educators are encouraged to make sure they are knowledgeable about the latest evidence for best second-stage-care practices so they can adequately prepare women to advocate for themselves during this time.

Maternal ambulation during labor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the recent advances in labor epidural analgesia, which may have an impact on maternal ambulation during labor.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the advent of new epidural adjuvant drugs and new epidural delivery systems, we are now able to use very low concentration local anesthetic solutions with a reduction in the total doses of local anesthetic administered. This allows a much greater preservation of lower limb motor function in the parturient, with a subsequent positive effect on maternal ambulation. Although it is well documented that maternal satisfaction scores are higher with ambulatory epidurals than with other more conventional epidural techniques, the other positive effects, such as shorter labor times, and a reduction in instrumental and cesarean delivery rates, thought to have been associated with ambulatory epidurals, have however been more difficult to prove.

SUMMARY

Since the earliest 'walking epidural' was described in the early 1990s, there has been much research into finding the ideal regional technique for labor analgesia that provides excellent analgesia with high maternal satisfaction scores while having little adverse effect on obstetric outcome. This review attempts to map the journey of the 'walking epidural' from its earliest form to its more recognizable modern day appearance.

Best Practices in Second Stage Labor Care: Maternal Bearing Down and Positioning

Despite evidence of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes from the use of sustained Valsalva bearing down efforts, current second-stage care practices are still characterized by uniform directions to "push" forcefully upon complete dilatation of the cervix while the woman is in a supine position. Directed pushing might slightly shorten the duration of second stage labor, but can also contribute to deoxygenation of the fetus; cause damage to urinary, pelvic, and perineal structures; and challenge a woman's confidence in her body. Research on the second stage of labor care is reviewed, with a focus on recent literature on maternal bearing down efforts, the "laboring down" approach to care, second-stage duration, and maternal position. Clinicians can apply the scientific evidence regarding the detrimental effects of sustained Valsalva bearing down efforts and supine positioning by individualizing second stage labor care and supporting women's involuntary bearing down sensations that can serve to guide her behaviors.

Possible feto-maternal clinical risk of the Kristeller’s expression

The aim of this clinical case study is evaluation of possible intrapartal complication of the uncritical Kristeller’s expression. In this retrospective clinical study, data on seven parturients with significant maternal or fetal intrapartum complications during the second labor stage and Kristeller expression, associated with the maneuver, were analyzed. Data was obtained from patient files: history of delivery delivery room protocol and neonatal reports from two tertiary maternal wards. There were five uterine ruptures that were treated by laparotomy and uterine sutures. Atypical rupture location on the uterine fundus occurred in one case, isthmus rupture in three cases, and rupture of the scar left after a previous cesarean section as a potential risk factor for uterine rupture in one case. Complex uterine cervicoisthmic rupture with incomplete colporrhexis occurred during the delivery of a macrosomic child at an outpatient ward. In one case, unilateral fracture of the tenth and eleventh ribs resolved spontaneously without complications. One case of peripartum trauma, possibly associated with extensive expression was observed in one neonates: cutaneous and subcutaneous hematoma on the back with traumatic unilateral adrenal hemorrhage. Both newborns were monitored, successfully treated, and discharged from the hospital free from complications. In conclusion, in the obstetrics as a high risk profession, a very critical approach should be exercised on choosing this maneuver, which should be reserved for the rare and strictly indicated cases, thereby strictly following the professional rules to avoid generally unnecessary and unpleasant litigation and forensic expertise.

The evidence supporting nursing management of labor

Although nursing practice is responsive to research findings, the practice site in which a nurse works has an impact on the ability to incorporate research changes into practice in a timely fashion. This review of the evidence base for nursing management of labor care focuses on care that typically falls within the nurses' domain and highlights the evidence in five areas in which there is research on patient preferences. These include management of admission and of progression during the first stage of labor, fetal monitoring, care and comfort practices during labor, and the management of second-stage labor. Directions for achieving progress toward practice change are highlighted.

Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: needs, resources and challenges

The investigation of heterogeneity remains an essential but difficult issue in the conduct of meta-analysis. We reviewed standard and graphical methods used to explore heterogeneity in meta-analysis and publications from January 2005 to April 2007 regarding meta-analyses that focused on perinatal health topics. We assessed their approaches to the investigation of heterogeneity, including: (1) whether statistical testing for heterogeneity was performed and, if so, which test was used, (2) how a finding of statistically significant heterogeneity was handled, and (3) how the analyses were conducted in the presence of heterogeneity.

Where have all the midwives gone?

In past centuries, only women attended women in childbirth. Birthing women were in control, choosing who should attend them and where and how to give birth. Men were usually excluded unless they were needed for their strength and their tools if labor was obstructed. Eventually, with the medicalization of childbirth, male physicians became involved, introducing new techniques that interfered with the normal birth process and competed with midwives. By the 19th century, midwives struggled to hold onto their profession and advance through education. Midwives survived in Europe, but in America, they were eventually usurped in the early 20th century when birth began taking place in hospitals and as medical science and technology advanced. Midwives eventually rose again as educated nurse-midwives. Technology and obstetric interventions in normal childbirth continue, in spite of lack of evidence of their efficacy. Midwives are again in jeopardy because of rising malpractice insurance costs, women's trust in technology, and, most recently, renewed efforts by physicians to once again prevent midwives from practicing autonomously and outside the hospital environment in the United States.

Tailoring systematic reviews to meet critical priorities in maternal health in the intrapartum period

Health care practitioners and researchers commonly call for greater reliance on evidence as a means to achieve improvement in quality of care. Systematic reviews provide a means to accelerate the use of evidence-based clinical interventions and public health practices. The extent to which these time- and resource-intensive systematic reviews currently address critical maternal health priorities in the intrapartum period is unclear. This analysis summarises key maternal health and research priorities, maps these priorities to existing reviews, identifies gaps in the literature that can be addressed with systematic reviews, and highlights key methodological concerns in conducting systematic reviews. The analysis draws on published data on maternal morbidities and an overview of 108 systematic reviews in Medline in the past 5 years using the MeSH terms 'Delivery, Obstetric,' to draw the links between health priorities, research priorities, existing evidence and missing evidence. Key causes of morbidity during labour and delivery in the United States include haemorrhage, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, obstetric trauma and infection. Analyses of maternal morbidity and mortality suggest that key concerns include racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes and the prevention of adverse events. Systematic reviews, however, generally tend to focus on the reduction of harms associated with interventions, are frequently limited to randomised designs, and do not address issues of health disparities. The results suggest that advances in evidence-based care in maternal health require that systematic reviews address issues of prevention of adverse events, include a larger variety of study designs when necessary and pay closer attention to health disparities.

Does epidural analgesia affect the rate of spontaneous obstetric lacerations in normal births?

The precise relationship between epidural use and genital tract lacerations in normal childbirth is unclear. Data from a clinical trial on measures to lower genital tract trauma in vaginal birth were used for a secondary analysis. The goal was to assess whether epidurals affect the rate of spontaneous obstetric lacerations in normal vaginal births. Maternal characteristics and intrapartum variables were compared in women who did and did not use an epidural in labor, and also in those with and without any sutured lacerations following vaginal birth. Variables that were statistically different in both cases were entered into regression equations for simultaneous adjustment. Epidural use was not an independent predictor of sutured lacerations. Predictors of sutured lacerations included nulliparity, a prolonged second stage, being non-Hispanic white, and an infant birthweight greater than 4000 grams. Elements of midwifery management need further research.