ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2026
Mapping global research on labor and postpartum pain management: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2025).
Review in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLabor and postpartum pain represent complex, multidimensional experiences shaped by physiological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. Effective pain management whether pharmacological (epidural analgesia) or non-pharmacological (acupuncture, massage) is integral to respectful maternity care and maternal well-being. Despite extensive clinical research, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific literature in this domain has been conducted.
methodsA bibliometric study was performed using data from the Web of Science Core Collection (2000–2025). The search strategy combined terms related to “labor or postpartum pain” and “analgesia, anesthesia, non-pharmacological interventions, or pain management.” Bibliometric indicators including co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence were analyzed using VOSviewer with fractional counting. Inclusion thresholds were: ≥5 documents and ≥50 citations per country, ≥30 occurrences per keyword, and ≥10 citations per cited source. Bibliometric indicators including co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence were analyzed using VOSviewer with fractional counting. Total link strength (sum of link strengths connecting a node to all others) served as the primary metric of collaborative influence and intellectual connectivity.
resultsOf the 80 countries identified, 36 were included in the visualization based on total link strength. The United States dominated in publications (n = 388), citations (5,412), and collaboration intensity (total link strength = 1,026), followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Thematic mapping revealed three core clusters: (1) psychological and physiological dimensions of pain, (2) pharmacological interventions (notably epidural analgesia), and (3) patient-centered, experiential care. High-impact journals spanned obstetrics (Obstetrics & Gynecology), anesthesiology (Anesthesia & Analgesia), and pain science (Pain). Low- and middle-income countries remained underrepresented despite bearing a disproportionate burden of maternal morbidity.
conclusionThis study maps the evolving, interdisciplinary landscape of labor and postpartum pain research and reveals persistent geographic, linguistic, and epistemic inequities. It underscores the need for equitable global research partnerships, inclusion of non-English literature, and context-sensitive, community-engaged approaches to ensure inclusive, respectful, and evidence-based pain management for all birthing individuals. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. Importantly, this article is based exclusively on a secondary analysis of publicly indexed scientific literature retrieved from the Web of Science main collection. This article does not involve any primary data collection, human subjects, animal experiments, or clinical interventions. Consequently, this study is exempt from ethical approval and no ethics committee approval was required or requested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.