Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia

Open access
Gupta, Janesh K, Hofmeyr, G Justus, Smyth, Rebecca MD·2004·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting) or lying down have advantages for women delivering their babies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of the use of different positions during the second stage of labour (i.e. from full dilatation of the cervix). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (16 April 2003). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that used randomised or quasi-randomised allocation and appropriate follow up and compared various positions assumed by pregnant women during the second stage of labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 19 included trials (5764 participants) was variable. Use of any upright or lateral position, compared with supine or lithotomy positions, was associated with: reduced duration of second stage of labour (10 trials: mean 4.29 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 5.64 minutes) - this was largely due to a considerable reduction in women allocated to the use of the birth cushion; a small reduction in assisted deliveries (18 trials: relative risk (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98); a reduction in episiotomies (12 trials: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91); an increase in second degree perineal tears (11 trials: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.39); increased estimated blood loss greater than 500 ml (11 trials: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15); reduced reporting of severe pain during second stage of labour (1 trial: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.90); fewer abnormal fetal heart rate patterns (1 trial: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.98). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The tentative findings of this review suggest several possible benefits for upright posture, with the possibility of increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 ml. Women should be encouraged to give birth in the position they find most comfortable. Until such time as the benefits and risks of various delivery positions are estimated with greater certainty, when methodologically stringent trials' data are available, women should be allowed to make informed choices about the birth positions in which they might wish to assume for delivery of their babies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002006.pub2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Gupta, J. K., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Smyth, R. M.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2004-01-26
Issue
1
Pages
CD002006-CD002006
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1689651652
Cited by
244
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002006.pub2
The paper
Gupta, J. K., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Smyth, R. M. (2004). Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002006.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.