| Literature DB >> 33224252 |
Mohsen Kazeminia1, Alireza Abdi1, Aliakbar Vaisi-Raygani1, Rostam Jalali1, Shamarina Shohaimi2, Alireza Daneshkhah3, Nader Salari4, Masoud Mohammadi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Labor pain is one of the most severe pains, which most of women experience. By using novel supportive methods, the labor pain can be reduced, which makes this event pleasant and delightful. Several original studies have been conducted in regard to the effect of lavender on reducing labor pain, whose results are controversial. One of the applications of meta-analysis studies is to respond to these hypotheses and remove controversies; therefore, this study aimed to determine the effect of lavender on labor pain in Iran by using meta-analysis.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33224252 PMCID: PMC7673944 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4384350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Evaluation of quality of quantitative studies using STROBE tool (N = 13).
| Row | Author(s) and year of publication | Introduction | Methods | Results | Discussion and conclusion | Score | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title and abstract | Introduction | Study method | Performing environment | Contributors | Variables | Data source and measurement method | Bias | Sample size | Quantitative variables | Statistical analysis methods | Descriptive data | Participants' reports | Report the original data | Main results of the study | Other analyzes | Report key results | Limitations | Interpretation of results | Generalization | Budget and financial support | |||
| 1 | Vakilian et al., 2012 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 2 | Alavi et al., 2010 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | − | + | − | − | High |
| 3 | Seraji and Vakilian, 2011 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | High |
| 4 | Leghaei and Hosseini, 2018 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | High |
| 5 | Hosseini et al., 2016 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | High |
| 6 | Nikbakht et al., 2014 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | High |
| 7 | Nehbandanii et al., 2018 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | High |
| 8 | Sobhani et al., 2006 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 9 | Khani et al., 2013 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 10 | Houshyar et al., 2015 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 11 | Hadi and Hanid, 2011 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 12 | Yazdkhasti and Pirak, 2016 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
| 13 | Olapour et al., 2013 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | Medium |
Figure 1Flow diagram of study selection.
Specifications of studies entered into the meta-analysis.
| Author, year, reference | Country | Sample size control group | Sample size intervention group | Mean ± SD group intervention | Mean ± SD group control |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vakilian, et al., 2012, [ | Arak | 60 | 60 | 6.80 ± 1.73 | 7.11 ± 1.26 | 0.27 |
| Alavi, et al. 2010, [ | Shiraz | 80 | 80 | 6.60 ± 2.20 | 7.80 ± 1.90 | ≤0.001 |
| Seraji and Vakilian, 2011, [ | Arak | 60 | 60 | 6.85 ± 1.65 | 7.14 ± 1.30 | 0.28 |
| Leghaei and Hosseini, 2018, [ | Shiraz | 20 | 20 | 2.92 ± 1.29 | 7.54 ± 0.65 | ≤0.001 |
| Hosseini, et al., 2016, [ | Shiraz | 15 | 15 | 3.23 ± 0.84 | 4.70 ± 0.46 | ≤0.001 |
| Nikbakht, et al., 2014, [ | Mashhad | 20 | 20 | 5.95 ± 1.39 | 9.65 ± 0.58 | ≤0.001 |
| Nehbandanii et al., 2018, [ | Zabol | 30 | 30 | 7.70 ± 1.20 | 9.05 ± 0.99 | ≤0.001 |
| Sobhani, et al., 2006, [ | Gilan | 240 | 240 | 6.14 ± 0.59 | 7.85 ± 0.32 | ≤0.001 |
| Khani, et al. 2013, [ | Birjand | 30 | 30 | 4.78 ± 1.50 | 6.14 ± 1.52 | ≤0.001 |
| Houshyar, et al., 2015, [ | Kerman | 50 | 50 | 6.02 ± 0.94 | 7.75 ± 0.97 | ≤0.001 |
| Hadi and Hanid, 2011, [ | Tabriz | 100 | 100 | 1.20 ± 0.87 | 4.23 ± 0.95 | 0.12 |
| Yazdkhasti and Pirak, 2016, [ | Tehran | 60 | 59 | 6.90 ± 1.70 | 8.50 ± 1.30 | ≤0.001 |
| Olapour, et al., 2013, [ | Ahvaz | 30 | 30 | 5.58 ± 0.48 | 6.98 ± 0.62 | ≤0.001 |
Figure 2Funnel plot obtained from studies entered into the meta-analysis by using standardized mean difference index (intervention).
Figure 3Funnel plot obtained from studies entered into the meta-analysis by using standardized mean difference index (control).
Figure 4Forest plot obtained by studies entered into the meta-analysis by using standardized mean difference index (intervention).
Figure 5Forest plot obtained by studies entered into the meta-analysis by using standardized mean difference index (control).
Figure 6Metaregression of association between sample size and entered studies in meta-analysis by using total mean index (intervention).
Figure 7Metaregression of association between sample size and entered studies into meta-analysis by using total mean index (control).
Figure 8Metaregression of association between publication date and entered studies into the meta-analysis by using total mean index (intervention).
Figure 9Metaregression of association between publication date and entered studies into the meta-analysis by using total mean index (control).