Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (PICOS)
Number | Author/ Year | Study design | Participants and Sample size | Intervention | Control | Duration of intervention | Outcomes (considered in this study) | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ahmed et al., 2018 [39] | Randomized, controlled, clinical trial | 57 pregnant women 26 intervention group 31 control group | 7 date’s fruits on the permission | Routine cares | Once | (1–3) Duration of first, second and third stage of labor | 1. ↓ Duration of the first and the third stage of labor in intervention groups significantly compared with control group 2. ↑ Duration of the second stage of labor in intervention groups but not significantly compare with control group |
2 | Razali et al.,2017 [40] | Randomized controlled clinical trial | 154 nulliparous singleton pregnant women 77 intervention group 77 control group | 7 date’s fruits (approximately 80 g) | Routine cares | 1–4 weeks | (1–3) Duration of first, second and third stage of labor (4) Frequency of caesarian section | 1. ↓ Duration of the first and the third stage of labor in intervention groups but not significantly compare with control group 2. ↑ Duration of the second stage of labor in intervention groups but not significantly compare with control group 3. No significant difference between two groups in mode of delivery |
3 | Randomized, controlled, clinical trial | 110 nuliparous pregnant women 55 intervention group 55 control group | 7 date’s fruit per day | Routine cares | From week 38 of pregnancy to onset of delivery signs | (1) Duration of active phase of labor (2) Bishop score (3) Frequency of caesarian section | 1. Significant ↓ of active phase of labor in intervention group compared with control group 2. Significant ↓in bishop score after intervention compared with control group 3. No significant differences in mode of delivery between two group 4. ↑ Bishop score significantly after intervention compared with control group 5. ↑ Cervical dilatation significantly after intervention compared with control group 6. ↑ Cervical effacement significantly after intervention compared with control group 7. ↑ Spontaneous labor significantly after intervention compared with control group | |
4 | Quasi-randomized, controlled, clinical trial | 210 pregnant women with gestational age of 37–38 weeks 105 intervention group 105 control group | 70–75 g date’s fruit per day | Routine cares | 1–3 weeks | (1) Bishop score (2) Frequency of caesarian section (3–5) Duration of first, second and third stage of labor | 1. Significant ↑ of the mean Bishop Score in intervention group compared with control group 2. No significant difference between two groups in mode of delivery (↓ frequency of cesarean section in intervention group) 1. The average length of the second phase and the third phase in the intervention group was significantly lower than the control group 2. Spontaneous start of labor in the intervention group was significantly more than the control group 3. No significant difference between average length of active phase of labor in the two 4. ↑Cervical dilatation in intervention group compared with control group (significant) 5. ↓Length of pregnancy in intervention group compared with control group (significant) | |
5 | Kordi et al.,2010 [38] | Randomized double blinded controlled clinical trial | 60 nuliparous pregnant women with gestational age of 37–42 weeks 30 intervention group 30 control group | 132 g date’s honey syrup from 4 cm cervix dilatation to labor | Routine cares | Maximum 1 day | (1) Duration of active phase of labor (2) Duration of second stage of labor | Significant ↓in duration of active and second phases of labor |