The prevalence of uterine fundal pressure during the second stage of labour for women giving birth in health facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 6 Results of subgroup analyses

	Number of studies^a	Pooled estimate of prevalence (%, 95% CI)	P
Income level	79		< 0.001*
High	33	16.4 (12.3–20.5)
Upper-middle	33	29.0 (23.1–35.0)
Lower-middle	10	34.7 (19.0–50.4)
Low	3	10.2 (2.6–17.7)
Decade	77		0.705
1991–2000	4	18.2 (3.4–33.0)
2001–2010	12	20.5 (9.7–31.4)
2011–2020	61	23.7 (19.3–28.1)
Parity	22		0.098
Nulliparous	22	27.3 (18.6–36.0)
Multiparous	11	15.6 (4.8–26.4)
Method of measuring use of fundal pressure	72		0.001*
Direct observation	29	28.0 (21.3–34.8)
Medical records	24	14.4 (9.1–19.7)
Women’s self-report	19	29.8 (21.5–38.0)

^aOne study reporting data from multiple countries of mixed income levels was excluded from the income level subgroup analysis. Studies that did not specify decade of data collection (n = 3) or method of assessing fundal pressure use (n = 8) were not included in subgroup analyses. Twenty-two studies included in subgroup analysis of parity—eleven of these provided data on both nulliparous and multiparous women, and eleven provided data on nulliparous women only

ISSN: 1742-4755