Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour

Singata, Mandisa; Tranmer, Joan; Gyte, Gillian ML

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003930.pub3

Cited by 89 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given these advances, it seems logical that there is no longer a need to restrict eating and drinking in labor. In addition, fasting in labor is unpleasant, makes it more difficult for women to meet the demands of labor, and may cause longer and more painful labors (Singata, Tranmer, & Gyte, 2013). Singata et al (2013) conducted the Cochrane review of eating and drinking in labor.…”

Section: Electronic Fetal Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, fasting in labor is unpleasant, makes it more difficult for women to meet the demands of labor, and may cause longer and more painful labors (Singata, Tranmer, & Gyte, 2013). Singata et al (2013) conducted the Cochrane review of eating and drinking in labor. The review looked at studies of any restriction of fluids and food in labor compared with being able to eat and drink.…”

Section: Electronic Fetal Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Healthy Birth Practice #4: Avoid Interventions Unless They Are Medically Necessary

Lothian¹

2014

J Perinat Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maternity care in the United States is intervention intensive. The routine use of intravenous fluids, restrictions on eating and drinking, continuous electronic fetal monitoring, epidural analgesia, and augmentation of labor characterize most U.S. births. The use of episiotomy is far from restrictive. These interventions disturb the normal physiology of labor and birth and restrict women's ability to cope with labor. The result is a cascade of interventions that increase risk, including the risk of cesarean surgery, for women and babies. Seventeen percent of women had an episiotomy, and 31% had a cesarean. The high use of these interventions reflects a system-wide maternity care philosophy of expecting trouble. There is an increasing body of research that suggests that the routine use of each of these interventions, rather than decreasing the risk of trouble in labor and birth, actually increases complications for both women and their babies.The purpose of this article is to review the literature related to the evidence base and the outcomes associated with the interventions routinely used in labor and birth in the United States. The findings make the case for the value of maternity care that avoids the use of routine interventions.Maternity care in the United States is intervention intensive. Listening to Mothers III (Declercq, Sakala, Corry, Applebaum, & Herrlich, 2013), the most recent national survey of women's pregnancy, birth, and postpartum experiences, reports that for women who gave birth from June 2011 to June 2012, 89% of women experienced electronic fetal monitoring (66% continuously), 62% received intravenous fluids, 79% experienced restrictions on eating, and 60% experienced restrictions on drinking in labor. Sixty-seven percent of women who gave birth vaginally had an epidural in labor, and 31% were given Pitocin to speed up their labors. Twenty percent of women had their membranes artificially ruptured.

show abstract

Section: Electronic Fetal Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Electronic Fetal Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthy Birth Practice #4: Avoid Interventions Unless They Are Medically Necessary

Lothian¹

2014

J Perinat Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…experimental in all trials), the meta-analysis was included in our study, but the order of the labels reversed, to be in accordance with the trial publications ( Table 2). For instance, a review containing a meta-analysis on food and drink intake during labor 22 considered food and drink restriction experimental. However, reading of the trial publications revealed that, in all the trials, allowing food and drink had been considered experimental.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case

Moustgaard

Jones

Savović

et al. 2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Randomized clinical trials underpin evidence‐based clinical practice, but flaws in their conduct may lead to biased estimates of intervention effects and hence invalid treatment recommendations. The main approach to the empirical study of bias is to collate a number of meta‐analyses and, within each, compare the results of trials with and without a methodological characteristic such as blinding of participants and health professionals. Estimated within‐meta‐analysis differences are combined across meta‐analyses, leading to an estimate of mean bias. Such “meta‐epidemiological” studies are published in increasing numbers and have the potential to inform trial design, assessment of risk of bias, and reporting guidelines. However, their interpretation is complicated by issues of confounding, imprecision, and applicability. We developed a guide for interpreting meta‐epidemiological studies, illustrated using MetaBLIND, a large study on the impact of blinding. Applying generally accepted principles of research methodology to meta‐epidemiology, we framed 10 questions covering the main issues to consider when interpreting results of such studies, including risk of systematic error, risk of random error, issues related to heterogeneity, and theoretical plausibility. We suggest that readers of a meta‐epidemiological study reflect comprehensively on the research question posed in the study, whether an experimental intervention was unequivocally identified for all included trials, the risk of misclassification of the trial characteristic, and the risk of confounding, i.e the adequacy of any adjustment for the likely confounders. We hope that our guide to interpretation of results of meta‐epidemiological studies is helpful for readers of such studies.

show abstract

“…38,39 The highly sensitive and nuanced interplay of neurohormonal systems activated during parturition promotes effective labor, provides protective physiologic responses, and enhances bonding behavior between the woman and neonate. 2,[40][41][42] The statement proposes that optimal physiologic functioning decreases the likelihood of intervention or compromise, which in turn increases the likelihood of newborns getting the best possible start in life, both physically and emotionally.…”

Section: Mechanisms and Outcomes Of Normal Physiologic Birthmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of a Consensus Statement on Normal Physiologic Birth: A Modified Delphi Study

Kennedy¹,

Cheyney²,

Lawlor³

et al. 2015

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour

Cited by 89 publications

References 35 publications

Healthy Birth Practice #4: Avoid Interventions Unless They Are Medically Necessary

Healthy Birth Practice #4: Avoid Interventions Unless They Are Medically Necessary

Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case

The Development of a Consensus Statement on Normal Physiologic Birth: A Modified Delphi Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About