Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21833754›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2011

[Anesthesiological management of Caesarean sections : nationwide survey in Germany].

H E Marcus, A Behrend, R Schier, O Dagtekin, P Teschendorf, B W Böttiger, F Spöhr

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. AkrinorFrontiers in pharmacology · 2017
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Use of Succinylcholine by Anaesthetists in Turkey: A National Survey.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2015
    Article
  18. Anaesthesia Techniques for Caesarean Operations: Retrospective Analysis of Last Decade.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2014
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H E MarcusKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinik Köln, Deutschland. hanke.marcus@uk-koeln.de
A Behrend
R Schier
O Dagtekin
P Teschendorf
B W Böttiger
F Spöhr
Poliklinik für Endokrinologie, Diabetologie und Präventivmedizin · DECentrum für Integrierte Onkologie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rate of Caesarean sections in Germany continues to rise. The change in anesthetic technique of choice from general to spinal anesthesia began later than in other countries and at the last survey in 2002 was not widely established. The literature on the anesthetic management of Caesarean sections contains many controversies, for example fluid preload before performing spinal anesthesia and the vasopressor of choice. Other issues have received relatively little attention, such as the level of experience of anesthesiologists working autonomously on the labour ward or the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis. The aim of the current survey was to provide an updated overview of anesthetic management of Caesarean sections in Germany. MATERIAL AND

methodsA questionnaire was sent out to 709 departments of anesthesiology serving obstetric units in Germany. The questionnaire concerned various aspects of anesthetic management of Caesarean sections.

resultsA total of 360 questionnaires (50.8%) were returned of which 346 were complete and could be analyzed, accounting for 330,000 births and 90,000 Caesarean sections per year. The predominant anesthetic method used for Caesarean sections was spinal anesthesia (90.8%) using hyperbaric bupivacaine and in approximately one third of the hospitals surveyed without administering intrathecal opioids. Approximately 12% of the departments surveyed used traumatic Quincke needles. In 86.2% the vasopressor of choice was caffedrine/theodrenaline. Nitrous oxide was used in only 19.2% of departments surveyed when general anesthesia is performed. An antibiotic drug was administered in only 11% of hospitals before cord clamping. In 43.1% no neonatologist was available to treat unexpected critically ill newborns. In 32.1% of departments surveyed residents with less than 2 years experience worked autonomously on the labour ward.

conclusionsCurrently the predominant anesthetic technique of choice in Germany is spinal anaesthesia and at a much higher rate than in 2002. In addition 12% of departments use traumatic Quincke needles which are associated with a higher incidence of postpuncture headache. Nitrous oxide is no longer frequently used in Germany. Finally, the administration of an antibiotic before cord clamping has been shown to lead to lower rates of endometritis and postoperative wound infection without detrimental effects on the newborn. This is practiced in only a small minority of departments across Germany.

Indexed as

AdultAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, ObstetricalAnesthesia, SpinalAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, LocalAntibiotic ProphylaxisCesarean SectionCritical CareFemaleGermanyHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, InhalationAnesthetics, LocalNitrous OxideVasoconstrictor Agents

Identifiers

PMID21833754
OpenAlexW199971947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.