↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 policy source
34 X users
4 Facebook pages


66 Dimensions

Readers on

582 Mendeley
Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007396.pub3
Pubmed ID

Lesley A Smith, Ethel Burns, Anna Cuthbert


Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010. To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach. We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects. Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 582 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 581 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 12%
Student > Bachelor 62 11%
Researcher 48 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 6%
Other 34 6%
Other 93 16%
Unknown 240 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 98 17%
Social Sciences 17 3%
Psychology 17 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Other 49 8%
Unknown 254 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2024.
All research outputs
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 344,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.