[Retracted] Comparative Efficacy of Water and Conventional Delivery during Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Baseline characteristics.

Author	Year	Age of the con. group	Age of the exp. group	Number of participants in the exp. group	Number of participants in the con. group	Intervention of the con. group	Intervention of the exp. group
Aughey H	2021	—	—	6264	39824	Conventional birth	Water birth
Bailey JM	2020	30.4	30.8	397	2025	Conventional birth	Water birth
Eberhard J	2005	—	—	1137	1652	Conventional birth	Water birth
Geissbuehler V	2004	—	—	3153	5255	Conventional birth	Water birth
Hodgson ZG	2020	31.5 (4.7)	31.8 (4.5)	2567	23201	Conventional birth, home	Water birth, home
Hodgson ZG'	2020	31.5 (4.7)	31.8 (4.5)	2567	23201	Conventional birth, hospital	Water birth, hospital
Jacoby S	2019	—	—	1716	21320	Conventional birth	Water birth
Lathrop A	2018	26.6 (5.2)	29.3 (5.3)	66	132	Conventional birth	Water birth
Otigbah CM	2000	—	—	301	301	Conventional birth	Water birth
Papoutsis D	2021	—	—	1007	36924	Conventional birth	Water birth
Snapp C	2020	—	—	10252	16432	Conventional birth	Water birth
da Silva FM	2009	21.1 (4.1)	19.7 (3.6)	54	54	Conventional birth	Water birth
Chaichian S	2009	27.1 (5.9)	26.4 (5.9)	53	53	Conventional birth	Water birth
Gayiti MR	2015	—	—	60	60	Conventional birth	Water birth
Lim KM	2016	33.6 (3.6)	33.6 (3.6)	118	118	Conventional birth	Water birth
Liu Y	2014	27.89 (2.99)	28.66 (3.08)	38	70	Conventional birth	Water birth
Menakaya U	2013	—	—	219	219	Conventional birth	Water birth
Ulfsdottir H	2018	32.2 (4.5)	32.2 (4.9)	306	306	Conventional birth	Water birth