| Literature DB >> 21943180 |
Carole K Do1, Caroline A Smith, Hannah Dahlen, Andrew Bisits, Virginia Schmied.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moxibustion (a type of Chinese medicine which involves burning a herb close to the skin) has been used to correct a breech presentation. Evidence of effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews is encouraging although significant heterogeneity has been found among trials. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of moxibustion plus usual care compared with usual care to promote cephalic version in women with a breech presentation, and examined the views of women and health care providers towards implementing a trial within an Australian context.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21943180 PMCID: PMC3192686 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-11-81
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Figure 1Flow of participants through the trial.
Baseline characteristics of women at trial entry
| Moxibustion | Control | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 10 | % | N = 10 | % | |
| Age (years) | 30.36 | (±3.13) | 24.60 | (±5.23) |
| Parity 0 | 7 | 70.0 | 9 | 90.0 |
| Marital status: Married/defacto | 9 | 90.0 | 8 | 80.0 |
| Employment status | ||||
| Working | 6 | 60.0 | 4 | 40.0 |
| Unemployed | 1 | 10.0 | 2 | 20.0 |
| Home duties/student | 3 | 30.0 | 4 | 40.0 |
| Education* | ||||
| Completed High school | 1 | 11.1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Completed tertiary education | 8 | 88.9 | 8* | 88.9 |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| Caucasian | 10 | 100.0 | 9 | 90.0 |
| Asian | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 10.0 |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 34.8 | (±0.69) | 35.6 | (±0.70) |
| Type of breech | ||||
| Complete | 1 | 10.0 | 2 | 20.0 |
| Frank | 3 | 30.0 | 3 | 30.0 |
| Unknown | 6 | 60.0 | 5 | 50.0 |
| Engagement of presenting part | ||||
| Yes | 1 | 10.0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| No | 9 | 90.0 | 10 | 100.0 |
| Placental location | ||||
| Anterior | 5 | 50.0 | 1 | 10.0 |
| Posterior | 4 | 40.0 | 6 | 60.0 |
| Other | 1 | 10.0 | 3 | 30.0 |
* missing data Data are n and % or mean and standard deviation.
Comparison of Outcome Measures Between Moxibustion and Control
| Moxibustion (as referent) | Control | Relative Risk (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 10 | N = 10 | |||
| Cephalic presentation (at delivery or before ECV) | 2 (20.0) | 0 (0) | 5.0 (0.27-92.62 | 0.28 |
| Cephalic presentation at delivery (including successful ECV) | 5 (50.0) | 1 (10.0) | 5.0 (0.70-35.5) | 0.11 |
| ECV | ||||
| Attempted | 4 (40.0) | 6 (60.0) | 0.67 (0.27-1.66) | 0.38 |
| Successful* | 2 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5.0 (0.27-95.62) | 0.28 |
| Mode of delivery | ||||
| Vaginal | 4 (40.0) | 1 (10.0) | 4.0 (0.54-29.8) | 0.18 |
| Caesarean | 6 (60.0) | 9 (90.0) | 0.67 (0.39-1.15) | 0.15 |
| Other outcomes | ||||
| Preterm birth requiring hospitalisation | 2 (20.0) | 0 (0) | 5.0 (0.27-92.62) | 0.28 |
| Prelabour rupture of membranes at < 37 weeks | 3 (30.0) | 0 (0) | 7.0 (0.41, 120.16) | 0.18 |
| Gestational age at delivery | 38.7 (2.11) | 39.9 (3.68) | 0.43 | |
| Apgar score < 7 at 5 min | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | N/A | |
| Birthweight (g) | 3224 (653.9) | 3193 (674) | 0.92 | |
| Admission to NICU | 2 (20.0) | 0 (0) | N/A |
Data are n (%) or mean (standard deviation) unless otherwise specified.* Calculated among women attempting ECV