This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (8 SEP 2015)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy

  1. Anne Matthews1,*,
  2. David M Haas2,
  3. Dónal P O'Mathúna3,
  4. Therese Dowswell4,
  5. Mary Doyle5

Editorial Group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Published Online: 21 MAR 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 27 APR 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub3


How to Cite

Matthews A, Haas DM, O'Mathúna DP, Dowswell T, Doyle M. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007575. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Dublin City University, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

  2. 2

    Indiana University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

  3. 3

    Dublin City University, School of Nursing & Human Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

  4. 4

    The University of Liverpool, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Liverpool, UK

  5. 5

    University Maternity Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

*Anne Matthews, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Collins Avenue, Dublin, 9, Ireland. anne.matthews@dcu.ie.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 21 MAR 2014

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (08 SEP 2015)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 1 Severity of nausea after treatment (of 4 days) using a 10 cm VAS.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 2 Severity of vomiting after treatment (of 4 days) as number of vomiting episodes.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 3 No improvement in intensity of symptoms (while using wristbands) reported.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 4 Mean nausea score after day 3 using VAS.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 5 Mean nausea score days 1-3 (average).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 6 Mean emesis scores days 1-3 (average).
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 P6 Acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 7 Mean total scores (Rhodes Index) days 1-3 (average).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 P6 Acupressure versus vitamin B6, Outcome 1 Nausea scores on day 3.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 P6 Acupressure versus vitamin B6, Outcome 2 Poor symptom relief/amount of rescue medication (number of tablets).
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 P6 Acupressure versus vitamin B6, Outcome 3 Satisfaction rating of intervention by participants.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 P6 Acupressure versus vitamin B6, Outcome 4 Weight gain from entry date to end of the trial (kg).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Auricular acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 1 Nausea/vomiting score (combined Rhodes Index score) on day 6 (3 days after treatment started).
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Auricular acupressure versus placebo, Outcome 2 Number of anti-emetic drugs used on day 6 (3 days after treatment started).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Acustimulation therapy at P6 point versus placebo, Outcome 1 Weight gain (in lbs) over 3 week period.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Acustimulation therapy at P6 point versus placebo, Outcome 2 Dehydration: occurrences reported.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Acustimulation therapy at P6 point versus placebo, Outcome 3 Ketonuria at the end of the trial.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Traditional acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean nausea score on day 7.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Traditional acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean dry retching score on day 7.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Traditional acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 3 Mean vomiting score on day 7.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 P6 Acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean nausea score on day 7.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 P6 Acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean dry retching score on day 7.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 P6 Acupuncture versus placebo, Outcome 3 Mean vomiting score on day 7.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Traditional acupuncture versus P6 acupuncture, Outcome 1 Mean nausea score on day 7.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Traditional acupuncture versus P6 acupuncture, Outcome 2 Mean dry retching score on day 7.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Traditional acupuncture versus P6 acupuncture, Outcome 3 Mean vomiting score on day 7.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean nausea score (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean vomiting severity (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 3 Rhodes Index score on day 3.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 4 Rhodes Index score after 1 week treatment.
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 5 Little improvement in nausea.
[Analysis 8.6]
Analysis 8.6. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 6 Number of women continuing vomiting at day 6.
[Analysis 8.7]
Analysis 8.7. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 7 Improvement in nausea (mean change score) over 4 days of treatment: women available to follow up.
[Analysis 8.8]
Analysis 8.8. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 8 Improvement in nausea (mean change score) over 4 days of treatment: ITT analysis.
[Analysis 8.9]
Analysis 8.9. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 9 Improvement in nausea intensity after treatment (day 5).
[Analysis 8.10]
Analysis 8.10. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 10 Spontaneous abortion.
[Analysis 8.11]
Analysis 8.11. Comparison 8 Ginger versus placebo, Outcome 11 Caesarean delivery.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Ginger versus chamomile, Outcome 1 Rhodes Index score after 1 week treatment.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 1 Nausea vomiting score day 3.
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 2 Post-treatment number of vomiting episodes: day 3.
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 3 No improvement in symptoms.
[Analysis 10.4]
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 4 Spontaneous abortion.
[Analysis 10.5]
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 5 Stillbirth.
[Analysis 10.6]
Analysis 10.6. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 6 Congenital abnormality.
[Analysis 10.7]
Analysis 10.7. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 7 Antepartum haemorrhage/abruption, placenta praevia.
[Analysis 10.8]
Analysis 10.8. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 8 Pregnancy-induced hypertension.
[Analysis 10.9]
Analysis 10.9. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 9 Pre-eclampisa.
[Analysis 10.10]
Analysis 10.10. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 10 Preterm birth.
[Analysis 10.11]
Analysis 10.11. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 11 Arrhythmia.
[Analysis 10.12]
Analysis 10.12. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 12 Headache.
[Analysis 10.13]
Analysis 10.13. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 13 Heartburn.
[Analysis 10.14]
Analysis 10.14. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 14 Sedation or drowsiness.
[Analysis 10.15]
Analysis 10.15. Comparison 10 Ginger versus vitamin B6, Outcome 15 Caesarean delivery.
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Ginger versus dimenhydrinate, Outcome 1 Drowsiness.
[Analysis 11.2]
Analysis 11.2. Comparison 11 Ginger versus dimenhydrinate, Outcome 2 Heartburn.
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Ginger versus metoclopramide, Outcome 1 Mean score for nausea (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Ginger versus metoclopramide, Outcome 2 Mean score for vomiting (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Ginger versus metoclopramide, Outcome 3 Rhodes Index score on day 3.
[Analysis 13.1]
Analysis 13.1. Comparison 13 Mint oil versus placebo, Outcome 1 Severity of nausea on day 4.
[Analysis 13.2]
Analysis 13.2. Comparison 13 Mint oil versus placebo, Outcome 2 Vomiting intensity on day 4.
[Analysis 14.1]
Analysis 14.1. Comparison 14 Lemon oil versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean PUQE score on day 3 of intervention.
[Analysis 14.2]
Analysis 14.2. Comparison 14 Lemon oil versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean difference of total PUQE scores from baseline to day 3 of intervention.
[Analysis 14.3]
Analysis 14.3. Comparison 14 Lemon oil versus placebo, Outcome 3 Satisfaction with the given treatment.
[Analysis 15.1]
Analysis 15.1. Comparison 15 Chamomile versus placebo, Outcome 1 Rhodes Index score after 1 week treatment.
[Analysis 16.1]
Analysis 16.1. Comparison 16 Vitamin B6 versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean reduction in nausea score after 3 days.
[Analysis 16.2]
Analysis 16.2. Comparison 16 Vitamin B6 versus placebo, Outcome 2 Number of patients with emesis post-therapy.
[Analysis 17.1]
Analysis 17.1. Comparison 17 Vitamin B6 (high dose) versus Vitamin B6 (low dose), Outcome 1 Mean change in PUQE score from baseline to 2 weeks.
[Analysis 18.1]
Analysis 18.1. Comparison 18 Hydroxyzine versus placebo, Outcome 1 No relief from nausea.
[Analysis 18.2]
Analysis 18.2. Comparison 18 Hydroxyzine versus placebo, Outcome 2 Spontaneous abortion (1st or 2nd trimester).
[Analysis 18.3]
Analysis 18.3. Comparison 18 Hydroxyzine versus placebo, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
[Analysis 19.1]
Analysis 19.1. Comparison 19 Dicyclomine/ doxylamine/ pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 1 No improvement of symptoms.
[Analysis 20.1]
Analysis 20.1. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean difference in nausea/vomiting/retching (PUQE score) baseline to day 15.
[Analysis 20.2]
Analysis 20.2. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 2 Requests for compassionate use of drug after day 14.
[Analysis 20.3]
Analysis 20.3. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 3 Headache.
[Analysis 20.4]
Analysis 20.4. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 4 Somnolence.
[Analysis 20.5]
Analysis 20.5. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 5 Difference in global assessment of well-being from baseline to day 15.
[Analysis 20.6]
Analysis 20.6. Comparison 20 Doxylamine and pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 6 Time loss from employment in days.
[Analysis 21.1]
Analysis 21.1. Comparison 21 Thiethylperazine versus placebo, Outcome 1 Poor relief from symptoms.
[Analysis 22.1]
Analysis 22.1. Comparison 22 Fluphenazine-pyridoxine versus placebo, Outcome 1 Poor response to treatment.
[Analysis 23.1]
Analysis 23.1. Comparison 23 Metoclopramide versus placebo, Outcome 1 Mean score for nausea (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 23.2]
Analysis 23.2. Comparison 23 Metoclopramide versus placebo, Outcome 2 Mean score for vomiting (using Rhodes Index) on day 3.
[Analysis 24.1]
Analysis 24.1. Comparison 24 Ondansetron versus metoclopramide, Outcome 1 Average number of nausea episodes on day 3 after treatment..
[Analysis 24.2]
Analysis 24.2. Comparison 24 Ondansetron versus metoclopramide, Outcome 2 Average number of vomiting episodes on day 3 after treatment..