title: Restricting oral fluid and food intake during labour.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Restricting fluids and foods during labour is common practice across many birth settings with some women only being allowed sips of water or ice chips. Restriction of oral intake may be unpleasant for some women, and may adversely influence their experience of labour.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine the benefits and harms of oral fluid or food restriction during labour.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of restricting fluids and food for women in labour compared with women free to eat and drink.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 19 studies of which we included five, involving 3130 women. We excluded eight studies, one awaits classification and five are ongoing studies. All the included studies looked at women in active labour and at low risk of potentially requiring a general anaesthetic. One study looked at complete restriction versus giving women the freedom to eat and drink at will; two studies looked at water only versus giving women specific fluids and foods and two studies looked at water only versus giving women carbohydrate drinks.When comparing any restriction of fluids and food versus women given some nutrition in labour, the meta-analysis was dominated by one study undertaken in a highly medicalised environment. There were no statistically significant differences identified in: caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.25, five studies, 3103 women), operative vaginal births (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10, five studies, 3103 women) and Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68, four studies, 2902 infants), nor in any of the other outcomes assessed. Women's views were not assessed. The pooled data were insufficient to assess the incidence of Mendelson's syndrome, an extremely rare outcome. Other comparisons showed similar findings, except one study did report a significant increase in caesarean sections for women taking carbohydrate drinks in labour compared with water only, but these results should be interpreted with caution as the sample size was small.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Since the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labour for women at low risk of complications. No studies looked specifically at women at increased risk of complications, hence there is no evidence to support restrictions in this group of women. Conflicting evidence on carbohydrate solutions means further studies are needed and it is critical in any future studies to assess women's views.
authors: Effective Care Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand/University of Fort Hare/East London Hospital complex, East London, South Africa.
authors: Mandisa
authors: M
authors: Singata
authors: Joan
authors: J
authors: Tranmer
authors: Gillian M L
authors: GM
authors: Gyte
mesh_terms: D001628:Beverages / Q000009:adverse effects; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D004040:Dietary Carbohydrates / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D004326:Drinking; D004435:Eating; D005215:Fasting / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007743:Labor, Obstetric; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
chemical_list: D004040:Dietary Carbohydrates
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD004943
references: 20091567
references: Birth. 1988 Jun;15(2):88-92
references: 3291890
references: Anesth Analg. 2002 Feb;94(2):404-8, table of contents
references: 11812708
references: Anesth Analg. 1982 Jan;61(1):32-5
references: 7032366
references: Stat Med. 2006 Oct 30;25(20):3443-57
references: 16345038
references: Lancet. 1975 Aug 2;2(7927):227-8
references: 51981
references: BJOG. 2004 Dec;111(12):1382-7
references: 15663123
references: Br J Clin Pract. 1985 Feb;39(2):59-62
references: 3986104
references: Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1994 Spring;32(2):31-44
references: 8063449
references: Anaesthesia. 1999 Apr;54(4):329-34
references: 10455830
references: Anesthesiology. 1999 Mar;90(3):896-905
references: 10078693
references: Br J Anaesth. 1975 May;47(5):615-17
references: 237522
references: Birth. 1986 Dec;13(4):234-40
references: 3643799
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1946 Aug;52:191-205
references: 20993766
references: Postgrad Med J. 1971 Jun;47:Suppl:371-5
references: 4934632
references: BJOG. 2005 Oct;112(10):1454
references: 16167958
references: BMJ. 2009 Mar 24;338:b784
references: 19318702
references: BJOG. 2002 Feb;109(2):178-81
references: 11911101
references: Health Bull (Edinb). 2000 Mar;58(2):141-4
references: 12813843
references: Anaesthesia. 1991 Dec;46(12):1071-3
references: 1781538
references: Birth. 1986 Dec;13(4):227-33
references: 3101717
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD005298
references: 16856089
references: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references: 9310563
references: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Apr;30(3):248-52
references: 20373924
references: J Perinat Med. 2002;30(5):400-4
references: 12442604
references: Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 1996 Aug;18(4):310-1
references: 9388983
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1984 May;63(5):654-8
references: 6371625
references: Birth. 1991 Mar;18(1):33-7
references: 2006959
references: Birth. 1988 Jun;15(2):81-5
references: 3291889
references: Pract Midwife. 1998 Dec;1(12):26-9
references: 10214291
references: JAMA. 2006 Feb 8;295(6):676-80
references: 16467236
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD003930
references: 20091553
references: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2005 May-Jun;34(3):319-28
references: 15890830
references: N Engl J Med. 1989 Dec 28;321(26):1804-11
references: 2687692