ReviewPharmacoEconomics2002
Economic considerations related to providing adequate pain relief for women in labour: comparison of epidural and intravenous analgesia.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- PERCEPTION OF EPIDURAL ANALGESIA FOR LABOUR AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IN A NIGERIAN TERTIARY HOSPITAL SETTING.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidural analgesia and intravenous analgesia with opioids are two techniques for providing pain relief for women in labour. Labour pain is comparable to surgical pain in its severity, and epidural analgesia provides better relief from this pain than intravenous analgesia; a meta-analysis quantified this improvement to be 40 mm on a 100mm pain scale during the first stage of labour. Epidural analgesia also has fewer adverse effects. However, providing epidural analgesia for labour pain costs more. The full cost of providing epidural analgesia can be divided into two components: a baseline-cost component, which captures the costs of hospital care to parturients receiving intravenous analgesia for labour pain; and an incremental-cost component, which estimates the costs arising from incremental care specific to epidural analgesia. The baseline component may be constructed using hospital cost-accounting data pertaining to actual obstetric patients. The incremental component is constructed from a set of recognised complications of epidural and intravenous analgesia, associated incidence rates and estimates of the costs involved, from society's perspective. The incremental expected cost per patient to society of providing epidural analgesia was calculated to be approximately $US338 (1998 values). This cost difference results primarily from increased professional costs (and is particularly sensitive to the method used to estimate the cost of anaesthesia professional services) and increased complication costs associated with epidural analgesia. A rational social policy for providing labour analgesia must weigh the value of improved pain relief from epidural analgesia against the increased cost of epidural analgesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.