ReviewDer Anaesthesist2013
[Caesarean sections under regional anesthesia: pros and cons of supplementary oxygen].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2013. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The routine administration of supplemental oxygen to women undergoing elective caesarean section under regional anesthesia in order to optimize oxygen supply to the fetus is common anesthetic practice in many German hospitals. However, this practice has been controversially discussed in the non-German literature for many years. This review presents and discusses the pros and cons of routinely providing supplemental oxygen to a parturient during caesarean section on the basis of the literature published over the last 30 years. Proponents of routine oxygen administration point to potential and unforeseeable risks of caesarean sections and consider the prophylactic administration of oxygen based on physiological considerations to be advantageous in terms of patient safety. Interestingly, data regarding the effects of an increased maternal FIO2 on improvement of fetal oxygenation are inconsistent, therefore, no unambiguous recommendation concerning which FIO2 to choose can be given. Opponents of routine oxygen supplementation allude above all to an increase in free radical activity in both mother and fetus; however, data in this respect are not consistent either. As supplemental oxygen to patients undergoing elective caesarean section without any risk factors under regional anesthesia is associated with potential risks while no advantage has so far been demonstrated, routine administration of oxygen has to be challenged and is no longer considered to be indicated by many. On the contrary, in cases of emergency with a concomitant risk of hypoxia for mother and fetus, administration of oxygen is indispensable in the light of present data.
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.