Skip to main content
Download PDF

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in reducing amniocentesis-associated pain and anxiety

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 807 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This network meta-analysis compared different methods to determine which is most efficient at lowering pain and anxiety in women undergoing amniocentesis.

Method

We looked through all published randomized controlled trials in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EM base. Anxiety and pain were the predominant results. We used the R software version 4.2.1 to analyze the data.

Results

We included a total of 20 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 60 to 570. Virtual reality was the most effective strategy for lowering pain during AC [MD = -1.30, 95% CI (-2.11, -0.49)]. In addition, paracetamol use was the most successful approach for lowering pain following AC [MD = -1.68, 95% CI (-1.99, -1.37)]. The use of H7 acupressure, however, was the strategy that significantly reduced anxiety following AC [SMD = -15.46, 95% CI (-17.77, -13.15)].

Conclusion

The most effective method for reducing pain is the combination of virtual reality with paracetamol. Whereas, the most effective way to reduce anxiety is to combine an ice gel pack with H7 acupressure before applying AC.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Prenatal diagnosis is an approach used by obstetricians to predict possible outcomes for each pregnancy such as congenital infections, alloimmunization, fetal genetic disorders, and fetal lung maturity. Receiving a prenatal diagnosis of congenital defects is momentous and emotionally challenging for women [1]. However, it provides a crucial opportunity for early intervention and informed decision-making regarding the management and care of the fetus [2].

The detection of fetal defects such as aneuploidy, a structural chromosome problem, requires invasive prenatal procedures such as amniocentesis (AC) and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) [1]. Over 190,000 AC procedures were carried out in the United States in 1997, making it a regularly used technique in obstetric practice [3]. The process is performed between 15 – 20 weeks after pregnancy, and the results are available in 7 to 14 days [4]. However, it carries risks such as membrane leakage, infection, and abortion with rates of 1.6%, 0.05%, and 1%, respectively [1, 5, 6]. Therefore, prenatal counseling is essential to prevent avoidable risks and costs for pregnant women [7].

High levels of anxiety have been reported in women undergoing AC [8], which may be due to fear of pain, fetal injury, and abortion, as well as concern about unfavorable results [9]. Moreover, anxiety might prolong the duration of the AC procedure, and contribute to procedure complications [10]. Studies have established a direct correlation between anxiety levels and pain intensity [11], with severe anxiety associated with increased pain during AC and chorionic villus sampling [11,12,13,14].

Even the smallest hint of pain could make the patient uncooperative and prevent a successful prenatal diagnosis. Therefore, several studies looked into various methods to help women getting AC to feel less pain and anxiety. While some of these studies found their method helpful [15,16,17], others did not [18,19,20].

Therefore, our network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare different pain and anxiety management strategies to identify the most effective approach for minimizing discomfort during AC procedures.

Method

We followed the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)” standards to carry out this study [21]. Additionally, we strictly followed the steps provided in the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” [22].

Literature search strategy

From inception till August 2022, the following keywords were used to search PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central: amniocentesis, amniocenteses, anesthesia, “local anesthesia”, lidocaine, “xylocaine”, EMLA, “lidocaine-prilocaine”, lignocaine, prilocaine, dalcaine, xylocitin, xylesthesin, xyloneural, otocaine, music, cryoanalgesia, “cold therapy”, “virtual reality”, “H7 acupressure”, “ethyl chloride”, “aromatic therapy”, “Light Pressure Effleurage”, education, paracetamol, Panadol, cryotherapy, “cold pack”, “Subfreezing room”, “Subfreezing”, “Light leg rubbing”, massage, analgesia, analgesic. Additionally, manual searches were conducted on Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and clinicaltrials.gov.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We took included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients undergoing AC, compared various analgesics with one another, with a control, or with a placebo, and reported on pain perception, and anxiety. We excluded in vitro research, overlapping datasets, book chapters, reviews, cohort studies, case–control studies, and non-English articles. Using Endnote software, duplicates were eliminated, and then titles and abstracts of the retrieved references were checked. Eligible articles were then retrieved and underwent full-text screening. Additionally, we manually searched the reference lists of the papers that were included for other potentially qualifying studies.

Data extraction

We extracted the summary data, the population's baseline demographics, and the efficacy outcomes from the included studies.

Outcomes

Effective outcomes included anticipated pain, pain during the procedure, pain after the procedure, anxiety before the procedure, anxiety after the procedure, post-procedure pain, and anxiety, as well as willingness to undergo AC again if necessary.

Risk of bias

We used the Cochrane risk of bias instrument (version 2) as described in chapter 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook to evaluate the risk of bias [23]. The randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, selection of the reported result, and overall bias were part of the quality assessment process.

Data analysis

We used the meta and netmeta tools in the R program version 4.2.1, to carry out network analysis. For pooling continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), and for dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR), both with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Chi-square and I-square tests were used to determine how heterogeneous the pooled studies were, with a heterogeneous connection being defined as one where the I2 > 50% and the Chi-square P-value < 0.1. For pooling homogeneous data, we utilized a common effect model, and for heterogeneous data, we used random-effect model.

Results

Data collection and characteristics of included studies

One thousand seven hundred three articles were found during database searches: 447 from PubMed, 280 from Web of Science, 640 from Scopus, 54 from CENTRAL, and 282 from other databases. We filtered 1019 items and deleted 684 duplicates. 983 were eliminated through the title and abstract screening process, and 20 [15,16,17,18,19,20, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] acceptable studies were found after the full-text screening of the 36 publications that remained. A flowchart of the database search and study selection procedure is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred reporting item for systematic review and meta-analysis

Full size image

The sample sizes of the included RCTs ranged from 60 to 570 people. Different approaches were contrasted with one another, with a control group, or with a placebo. The included subjects' average age ranged from 31.3 to 37.7 years, their average gestational age was 15.9 to 21.95 weeks, and their average body mass index was 22.93 to 27 kg/m2. The summary and the baseline characteristics of the included subjects in each study are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Summary of the included studies
Full size table
Table 2 Baseline characteristics of included participants
Full size table

Risk of bias assessment

High to low-quality studies were included. The majority of the examined studies exhibited a high risk of bias across the board. In Supplementary Materials, Figs. S1 and S2 depict a risk of bias graph and a risk of bias summary, respectively.

Outcomes

Anticipated pain (See Supplementary materials)

Anticipated pain was reported by 10 studies [17, 19, 20, 25,26,27, 29, 31, 32, 34]. However, we removed WAX et al. [25], because their study resulted in two isolated networks. The most efficient method for reducing anticipated pain when compared to control was using an ice gel pack before AC; this method was significantly better [MD = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.54, -0.06)]. Figure 2 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Network meta-analysis forest plot of anticipated pain

Full size image

Pain during AC (See Supplementary materials)

Pain during AC was reported by six studies [15, 17, 18, 27, 34, 35]. However, we excluded Rekawek et al. [18], because their study resulted in two isolated networks. Virtual reality (VR) was the most effective approach for lowering pain during AC when compared to control [MD = -1.30, 95% CI (-2.11, -0.49)] after which ice gel pack before and after AC was the next most effective [MD = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.62, -0.23)]. Figure 3 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Network meta-analysis forest plot of pain during amniocentesis

Full size image

Pain after AC (See Supplementary materials)

Pain after AC was reported by 14 studies [17,18,19, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 33,34,35,36]. However, WAX et al. [25], was excluded because their study resulted in two isolated networks. Paracetamol was the most effective approach for lowering pain after AC when compared to control [MD = -1.68, 95% CI (-1.99, -1.37)] after which ice gel pack before and after AC was the next most effective [MD = -0.91, 95% CI (-1.30, -0.51)] Fig. 4 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Network meta-analysis forest plot of pain after amniocentesis

Full size image

Anxiety before AC (See Supplementary materials)

Eight studies reported anxiety before AC outcome [16, 19, 20, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37] Ice gel pack before AC was the most effective approach for lowering anxiety before AC when compared to control [SMD = -2.30, 95% CI (-2.43, -2.17)] after which menthol was the next most effective [SMD = -2.00, 95% CI (-2.37, -1.63)]. Figure 5 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Network meta-analysis forest plot of anxiety before amniocentesis

Full size image

Anxiety after AC (See supplementary materials)

Anxiety after AC was reported in five studies [16, 29, 33, 36, 37]. Katsogiannou et al. [33], were excluded because their study resulted in two isolated networks. H7-Acupressure was the most effective approach for lowering anxiety after AC when compared to control [SMD = -15.46, 95% CI (-17.77, -13.15)] after which psychological intervention was the next most effective [SMD = -6.78, 95% CI (-10.47, -3.09)]. Figure 6 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Network meta-analysis forest plot of anxiety after amniocentesis

Full size image

Post-procedure pain and anxiety (See Supplementary materials)

Post-procedure pain and anxiety were reported in three studies [20, 31, 32]. The use of Ice gel pack before AC was the most effective method for reducing post-procedure pain and anxiety when compared to the control [MD = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.92, -0.28)]. Figure 7 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Network meta-analysis forest plot of post-procedure pain and anxiety

Full size image

Undergoing AC again if indicated (See Supplementary materials)

This outcome was reported in three studies [20, 24, 26]. Compared to the control group, the available strategies were not significant. Figure 8 displays the NMA forest plot.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Network meta-analysis forest plot of Undergoing amniocentesis again if indicated

Full size image

Table 3 Summarizes the findings of the main outcomes.

Table 3 Summary of the main findings of the NMA
Full size table

Discussion

The present network meta-analysis compared different strategies to reduce pain and anxiety in prenatal diagnostic procedures. The VR intervention was the most successful in reducing pain during AC. The literature reported that paying attention to pain might affect the pain experience, can be used to explain this. It implies that deflecting attention away from pain can lower perceived pain levels [38]. Distraction is to make a painful stimulus seem less intense since people can’t focus on several sensory inputs at once [39]. Additionally, the VR’s multiple senses may impede nociception flow and lessen pain perception [40]. With a VR headset on, patients can leave the clinical setting and visit another world unconnected to the treatment and any potential pain [41]. Although the exact method by which VR relieves pain is yet unknown, given the well-known connection between pain and emotions, the analgesic impact of VR may be mediated by brain systems [40]. Additionally, VR is simple to use, reasonably priced, and has the benefit of no negative side effects.

The popular pain reliever paracetamol is safe for use during pregnancy [42]. It was successful in lowering pain following AC; however, it was ineffective during AC. The timing of drug intake before the surgery may help to explain this [17]. Further research is needed to determine the ideal premedication period. However, paracetamol has a number of benefits including broad therapeutic applicability, good tolerability, and good absorption after oral administration [43].

The anti-swelling and analgesic effects of cold therapy are widely established for treating soft tissue injuries [44], postoperative pain from gynecologic surgery [45], and perineal pain following vaginal delivery [46]. Reduced soft tissue temperature can have an analgesic effect by slowing the speed at which pain is transmitted. Therefore, applying an ice gel pack before and after receiving AC was useful in lowering pain only after receiving AC, not during receiving AC. Additionally, applying an ice gel pack prior to the AC helped to lower anxiousness. However, a prolonged or excessive exposure might have negative effects like burns and ulcers [46].

H7 Acupressure proved to be successful in lowering anxiety after AC. The results can be explained by a number of various mechanisms. Cortisol and stress are associated in that as stress rises, cortisol also rises. In the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, the stimulation of acupressure points alters hormonal-neuronal responses, which in turn controls cortisol output and induces calm. Additionally, by activating the anterior pituitary, acupressure can boost serotonin and dopamine release [47]. Serotonin and dopamine levels in the plasma rise, which reduces cortisol synthesis [48]. In addition, the stimulation of the acupressure point releases endorphins, which peak 30 min after the stimulation begins and remain elevated for 10 h. Similarly, serotonin levels are raised, and endorphins are released when the H7 acupoint is stimulated vigorously and repeatedly [49]. However, other factors must be taken into account while using this method as they may have an impact on the outcomes, such as the target population, the acupressure points employed, and the length of the acupressure.

Limitations

The majority of the included studies had a high overall risk of bias, which could have an impact on the study’s findings. We exclude some trials to conduct a single network meta-analysis.

Conclusion

VR was the most effective method for reducing pain during AC, whereas paracetamol was the best method for reducing pain following AC. Additionally, H7 Acupressure was the most effective for reducing anxiety after AC, while an ice gel pack was the best for reducing anxiety before AC. By combining and integrating these methods, healthcare workers will have the potential to significantly aid women who are having AC.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

NMA:

Network meta-analysis

AC:

Amniocentesis

VR:

Visual reality

References

  1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL et al. Williams obstetrics. USA: McGraw-Hill Medical New York; 2014.

  2. Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, Walsh MC. Genetic aspects of perinatal disease and prenatal diagnosis. 11th ed. Fanaroff and Martin's Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. Cleveland: Elsevier; 2020.

  3. Seeds JW. Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):607–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM et al. Obstetrícia de Williams-25. Brazil: McGraw Hill Brasil; 2021.

  5. Tara F, Lotfalizadeh M, Moeindarbari S. The effect of diagnostic amniocentesis and its complications on early spontaneous abortion. Electron Physician. 2017;8:2787–92.

  6. Hsu WW, Hsieh CJ, Lee CN, Chen CL, Lin MW, Kang J, et al. Complication rates after chorionic villus sampling and midtrimester amniocentesis: a 7-year national registry study. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118(7):1107–13.

  7. Quaresima P, Visconti F, Greco E, Venturella R, Di Carlo C. Prenatal tests for chromosomal abnormalities detection (PTCAD): Pregnant women’s knowledge in an Italian Population. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;303;1185–90.

  8. Tursinawati Y, Thain S, Choi C, Seow GHY. Amniocentesis increases level of anxiety in women with invasive prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome. Universa Med. 2015;34(2):112–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakić Radoš S, Košec V, Gall V. The psychological effects of prenatal diagnostic procedures: maternal anxiety before and after invasive and noninvasive procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(12):1194–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brajenović-Milić B, Martinac Dorčić T, Kuljanić K, Petrović O. Stress and anxiety in relation to amniocentesis: do women who perceive their partners to be more involved in pregnancy feel less stressed and anxious? Croatian Med J. 2010;51(2):137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Klages K, Kundu S, Erlenwein J, Elsaesser M, Hillemanns P, Scharf A, et al. Maternal anxiety and its correlation with pain experience during chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. J Pain Res. 2017;Volume 10:591–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bot-Robin V, Sendon S, Bourzoufi K, Vaast P, Deken V, Dutoit P, et al. Maternal anxiety and pain during prenatal diagnostic techniques: a prospective study. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(6):562–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Csaba A, Bush MC, Saphier C. How painful are amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling? Prenat Diagn. 2006;26:35–8.

  14. Locock L, Field K, McPherson A, Boyd PA. Women’s accounts of the physical sensation of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: expectations and experience. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):64–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Melcer Y, Maymon R, Gal-Kochav M, Pekar-Zlotin M, Levinsohn-Tavor O, Meizner I, et al. Analgesic efficacy of virtual reality for acute pain in amniocentesis: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;261:134–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohammadifard M, Salarfard M, Samieean M. The effect of H7 acupressure on amniocentesis anxiety in pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2021;10(4):222.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tuaktaew T, Sudjai D, Pattanavijarn L. Oral paracetamol premedication effect on maternal pain in amniocentesis: a randomised double blind placebo-controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(8):1078–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rekawek P, Stone JL, Robles B, Connolly KA, Bigelow CA, Tudela F, et al. Pain perception during transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a randomized trial comparing topical ethyl chloride anesthetic spray and lidocaine injection. J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;34(3):339–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pongrojpaw D, Somprasit C, Chanthasenanont A. The efficacy of lidocaine-prilocaine cream to reduce pain in genetic amniocentesis. Med J Med Associ Thail. 2007;90(10):1992.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hanprasertpong T, Kor-anantakul O, Leetanaporn R, Suwanrath C, Suntharasaj T, Pruksanusak N, et al. Music listening to decrease pain during second trimester genetic amniocentesis: a randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2016;99(12):1272–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Higgins JP, Altman DG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. 2008;5.1.0:187–241.

  23. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366.

  24. Van Schoubroeck D, Verhaeghe J. Does local anesthesia at mid-trimester amniocentesis decrease pain experience? A randomized trial in 220 patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(6):536–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wax JR, Pinette MG, Carpenter M, Chard R, Blackstone J, Cartin A. Reducing pain with genetic amniocentesis—A randomized trial of subfreezing versus room temperature needles. J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18(4):221–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Telapol K, Bumrungphuet S, Ayudhya NIN. Effect of Ethyl Chloride Spray for Pain reduction during amniocentesis: a non–blinded randomized controlled trial. Thai J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;26:75–82.

  27. Benchahong S, Pongrojpaw D, Chanthasenanont A, Limpivest U, Nanthakomon T, Lertvutivivat S, et al. Cold therapy for pain relief during and after amniocentesis procedure: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2021;47(8):2623–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Elimian A, Goodman JR, Knudtson E, Wagner A, Wilson P, Williams M. Local anesthesia and pain perception during amniocentesis: a randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(12):1158–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fischer RL, Bianculli KW, Sehdev H, Hediger ML. Does light pressure effleurage reduce pain and anxiety associated with genetic amniocentesis? A randomized clinical trial. J Maternal-Fetal Med. 2000;9(5):294–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gordon MC, Ventura-Braswell A, Higby K, Ward JA. Does local anesthesia decrease pain perception in women undergoing amniocentesis? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(1):55.e1-.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanprasertpong T, Kor-Anantakul O, Prasartwanakit V, Leetanaporn R, Suntharasaj T, Suwanrath C. Efficacy of cryoanalgesia in decreasing pain during second trimester genetic amniocentesis: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:563–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hanprasertpong T, Kor-anantakul O, Leetanaporn R, Suwanrath C, Suntharasaj T, Pruksanusak N, et al. Reducing pain and anxiety during second trimester genetic amniocentesis using aromatic therapy: a randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(8):734–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Katsogiannou M, Donato XC, Loundou A, Glowaczower E, Raffray M, Planchet-Barraud B, et al. Managing pain and anxiety during transabdominal chorionic villus sampling. A noninferiority randomized trial of nitrous oxide vs local anesthesia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;98(3):351–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuemanee O, Pongrojpaw D, Chanthasenanont A, Benchahong S, Pattaraarchachai J, Bhamarapravatana K, et al. Reducing pain after second trimester genetic amniocentesis by postprocedural cryotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thail. 2021;104(8):1235–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Homkrun P, Tongsong T, Srisupundit K. Effect of Xylocaine spray for analgesia during amniocentesis: a randomized controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(13):1179–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kang C-M. Effects of psychological intervention and relevant influence factors on pregnant women undergoing interventional prenatal diagnosis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2020;83(2):202–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mojahed S, Reyhanizadeh F, Tabatabaei RS, Dehghani A. Evaluation of the effect of education on perceived stress of mother candidates for amniocentesis. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:267.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Pain demands attention: a cognitive–affective model of the interruptive function of pain. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(3):356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McCaul KD, Malott JM. Distraction and coping with pain. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(3):516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sharar SR, Alamdari A, Hoffer C, Hoffman HG, Jensen MP, Patterson DR. Circumplex model of affect: a measure of pleasure and arousal during virtual reality distraction analgesia. Games Health J. 2016;5(3):197–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoffman HG, Chambers GT, Meyer WJ III, Arceneaux LL, Russell WJ, Seibel EJ, et al. Virtual reality as an adjunctive non-pharmacologic analgesic for acute burn pain during medical procedures. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(2):183–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rebordosa C, Kogevinas M, Horváth-Puhó E, Nørgård B, Morales M, Czeizel AE, et al. Acetaminophen use during pregnancy: effects on risk for Congenital Abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(2):178e1-1787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jóźwiak-Bebenista M, Nowak JZ. Paracetamol: mechanism of action, applications and safety concern. Acta Pol Pharm. 2014;71(1):11–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kuo C-C, Lin C-C, Lee W-J, Huang W-T. Comparing the antiswelling and analgesic effects of three different ice pack therapy durations: a randomized controlled trial on cases with soft tissue injuries. J Nurs Res. 2013;21(3):186–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chumkam A, Pongrojpaw D, Chanthasenanont A, Pattaraarchachai J, Bhamarapravatana K, Suwannarurk K. Cryotherapy reduced postoperative pain in gynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Pain Res Treat. 2019;2019:2405159.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Francisco AA, De Oliveira SMJV, Steen M, Nobre MRC, De Souza EV. Ice pack induced perineal analgesia after spontaneous vaginal birth: Randomized controlled trial. Women Birth. 2018;31(5):e334–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Valiee S, Bassampour SS, Nasrabadi AN, Pouresmaeil Z, Mehran A. Effect of acupressure on preoperative anxiety: a clinical trial. J PeriAnesthesia Nurs. 2012;27(4):259–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nahayati MA, Vaghar Seyyedin SA, Bahrami-Taghanki HR, Rezaee Z, Mehrpooya N, Rahimi H. Effect of acupressure on stress and anxiety of patients with multiple sclerosis: a sham-controlled randomized clinical trial. Complement Med J. 2020;10(3):270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Choubsaz M, Amirifard N, Pourmatin S. Compare the effect of dry-cupping by stimulating the P6 and H7 point in controlling perioperative anxiety. Biomed Res. 2017;28(3):1070–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgment.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support was received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Yassin Abdelghaffar Street From Gamal Abdelnaser Street, Shebin Al-Kom, Menoufia, Egypt

    Abdelrahman Mohamed Mahmoud & Abdallah R. Allam

Authors
  1. Abdelrahman Mohamed Mahmoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdallah R. Allam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.M.M. conceptualized the research idea, coordinated the resources, performed data extraction, performed the quality assessment, conducted the network meta-analysis, and participated in writing and editing the final manuscript. A.R.A. performed data extraction, performed the quality assessment, conducted the network meta-analysis, and participated in writing and editing the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdallah R. Allam.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not available.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahmoud, A.M., Allam, A.R. Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in reducing amniocentesis-associated pain and anxiety. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 807 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06094-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06094-3

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us