Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636721›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour.

S W Simmons, A M Cyna, A T Dennis, D Hughes

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01982838 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Trial of the Impact of Three Labor Analgesia Techniques on Labor Duration in Spontaneously Laboring Nulliparous Parturients

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2010 to 2014Enrolled129ConditionsEffects of, Anesthesia, in Labor and Delivery, Pregnancy, Prolonged First Stage of LaborArmsEpidural de novo, CSE
NCT01982851 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Trial of the Impact of Three Labor Analgesia Techniques on Labor Duration in Nulliparous Labor Inductions

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2010 to 2014Enrolled134ConditionsEffects of, Anesthesia, in Labor and Delivery, Pregnancy, Prolonged First Stage of LaborArmsEpidural de novo, CSE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Immersion in water during labour and birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Massage, reflexology and other manual methods for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia for labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  6. Non-opioid drugs for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Local anaesthetic nerve block for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  8. Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Aromatherapy for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  11. Biofeedback for pain management during labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  12. Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Immersion in water in labour and birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. A survey of labour epidural practices at obstetric anesthesia fellowship programs in the United States.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  20. Neuraxial techniques of labour analgesia.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S W SimmonsMercy Hospital for Women, 163 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3084. ssimmons@mercy.com.au
A M Cyna
A T Dennis
D Hughes
Mercy Hospital for Women · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation, and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.

objectivesTo assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion and extracted the data. MAIN

resultsNineteen trials (2658 women) met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed. Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses only three outcomes showed a difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to need for rescue analgesia and urinary retention, but associated with more pruritus. For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, four outcomes were statistically significant. CSE had a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection but was associated with more pruritus. CSE was also associated with a clinically non-significant lower umbilical arterial pH. No differences between CSE and epidural were seen for maternal satisfaction, mobilisation in labour, modes of birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache or blood patch and maternal hypotension. It was not possible to draw any conclusions with respect to maternal respiratory depression, maternal sedation and need for labour augmentation. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and less pruritus with epidurals. There is no difference in ability to mobilise, obstetric outcome or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention and rescue interventions with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, ObstetricalAnesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, SpinalFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17636721
OpenAlexW4250789260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.