Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25713015›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial.

Liv M Freeman, Kitty W Bloemenkamp, Maureen T Franssen, Dimitri N Papatsonis, Petra J Hajenius, Markus W Hollmann, Mallory D Woiski, Martina Porath, Hans J van den Berg, Erik van Beek and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Maternal quality of life in routine labor epidural analgesia versus labor analgesia on request: results of a randomized trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Epidural Analgesia and Back Pain after Labor.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019
    Article
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

25 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Liv M FreemanObstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands l.m.freeman@lumc.nl.
Kitty W BloemenkampObstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Maureen T FranssenObstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Dimitri N PapatsonisObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands.
Petra J HajeniusObstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Markus W HollmannAnaesthesiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mallory D WoiskiObstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Martina PorathObstetrics and Gynaecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Hans J van den BergAnaesthesiology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Erik van BeekObstetrics and Gynaecology, Saint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
Odette W H M BorchertAnaesthesiology, Saint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
Nico SchuitemakerObstetrics and Gynaecology, Diakonessen Hospital, Utrecht, Netherlands.
J Marko SikkemaObstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, Netherlands.
A H M KuipersAnaesthesiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo, Netherlands.
Sabine L M LogtenbergObstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Paulien C M van der SalmObstetrics and Gynaecology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, Netherlands.
Katrien Oude RengerinkObstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Enrico LopriorePaediatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
M Elske van den Akker-van MarleMedical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Saskia le CessieMedical Statistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Jan M van LithObstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Michel M StruysAnaesthesiology, University of Groningen and University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Ben Willem J MolRobinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Albert DahanAnaesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Johanna M MiddeldorpObstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLLeiden University · NLMáxima Medisch Centrum · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLZiekenhuis Groep Twente · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLMeander Medisch Centrum · NLOLVG · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour.

designMulticentre randomised controlled equivalence trial.

setting15 hospitals in the Netherlands.

participantsWomen with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data.

interventionBefore the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome.

results1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups.

conclusionIn women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, Patient-ControlledAdultAnalgesia, ObstetricalAnalgesics, OpioidArea Under CurveCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansNetherlandsPain ManagementPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPiperidinesPregnancyRemifentanilAnalgesics, OpioidPiperidinesRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID25713015
PMCPMC4353278
OpenAlexW2103858265

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.