MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410739340 · doi:10.2196/63050

The Effects of Acupoint Stimulation Combined With Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Labor Pain: Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410739340 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiyun Gu, Chunxiang Zhu, Hui Min, Liping Mao, Hua Gao, Hangyun Sun, Chunyi Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildbirthMedicineTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionPhysical therapyLabor painClinical trialPregnancyNursingAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain experienced during childbirth can significantly impact the progress of labor and the well-being of both the mother and the fetus. Effective management of labor pain is a crucial component of childbirth care. Nonpharmacological methods of pain relief offer notable advantages over pharmacological approaches, including enhanced maternal and fetal safety, equitable access to health care, and greater availability. Among the nonpharmacological options, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and acupoint stimulation are two commonly used methods for alleviating pain during labor. However, the clinical efficacy of these methods remains inconsistent, which hinders the generation of high-quality evidence for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effects of acupoint stimulation combined with TENS on labor pain, delivery outcomes, and childbirth experience for women undergoing a trial of labor. METHODS: This is a 12-month stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to be conducted in 4 labor and delivery units (LDUs) at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University. Each unit will implement 4 types of interventions: TENS, acupoint stimulation, TENS combined with acupoint stimulation, and a control group. We aim to recruit approximately 588 pregnant women. The project will be evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will include visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the nonpharmacological to pharmacological pain management interval (NPI), the rate of epidural analgesia, and childbirth outcomes. Qualitative data will include interviews with the women and midwives. RESULTS: The study commenced on April 1, 2023, and as of March 29, 2024, a total of 600 eligible participants have been enrolled, surpassing the initial target of 588. Data collection has been completed, including quantitative assessments of labor pain intensity, analgesic use, and childbirth outcomes, alongside qualitative interviews with participating women. Currently, data analysis is in progress, with preliminary findings anticipated to be available by March 2025. We hypothesize that TENS combined with acupoint stimulation will demonstrate greater efficacy in managing labor pain compared with standard care. This effect may be observed in key outcome measures, including the VAS score and enhanced maternal childbirth experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study protocol details the interventions of acupoint stimulation and TENS for women undergoing a trial of labor. We introduce a novel outcome indicator termed NPI, which monitors whether the application of nonpharmacological pain relief measures can delay or prevent the use of epidural analgesia. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods will enrich the research on TENS and acupoint stimulation technology within the realm of nonpharmacological labor pain relief, providing high-quality evidence for the future establishment of industry standards and guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300069705; https://tinyurl.com/2s3mkhr7. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/63050.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.445 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→