Trial reportPloS one2015
Effects of Combined Spinal-Epidural Analgesia during Labor on Postpartum Electrophysiological Function of Maternal Pelvic Floor Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02334150 (Effects of Combined Spinal-epidural Analgesia During Labor on Postpartum Electrophysiological Function of Maternal Pelvic Floor Muscle), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Effects of Combined Spinal-epidural Analgesia During Labor on Postpartum Electrophysiological Function of Maternal Pelvic Floor Muscle: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Association of labor epidural analgesia with early postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women undergoing vaginal delivery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Epidural Anesthesia and Pelvic Floor Outcomes in Primiparas: A Retrospective Transperineal Ultrasound Study.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Pelvic floor dysfunction and electrophysiology in postpartum women at 6-8 weeks.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Observational
- Comparison of the labor curves with and without combined spinal-epidural analgesia in nulliparous women- a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Does epidural anesthesia influence pelvic floor muscle endurance and strength and the prevalence of urinary incontinence 6 weeks postpartum?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- A Mobile Application Penyikang Applied in Postpartum Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: A Cross-Sectional Study to Analyze the Factors Influencing Postpartum Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength and Women's Participation in Treatment.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Assessment of different loading doses of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in preventing adverse reaction after combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCombined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) is sometimes used for difficult births, but whether it contributes to postpartum pelvic muscle disorder is unclear. This randomized controlled trial examined whether CSEA given during labor affects the electrophysiological index of postpartum pelvic floor muscle function.
methodsA consecutive sample of primiparous women who delivered vaginally at term were randomly assigned to a CSEA group (n = 143) and control group (n = 142) between June 2013 and June 2014. All were assessed 6-8 weeks later for electrophysiological function of pelvic floor muscle.
resultsThe two groups were similar in the degree of muscle strength, muscle fatigue, and pelvic dynamic pressure of pelvic floor muscle. The CSEA and control groups showed similar proportions of women with normal muscle strength (score ≥4) in type I pelvic fibers (23.1% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.051) and type II pelvic fibers (28.0% vs. 24.6%, P = 0.524). The groups also contained similar proportions of women who showed no fatigue in type I fibers (54.5% vs. 48.6%, P = 0.315) or type II fibers (88.8% vs. 87.3%, P = 0.699). Similarly low proportions of women in the CSEA group and control group showed normal pelvic dynamic pressure (11.2% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.321). However, women in the CSEA group spent significantly less time in labor than those in the control group (7.25 vs. 9.52 h, P <0.001).
conclusionsCSEA did not affect the risk of postpartum pelvic muscle disorder in this cohort of primiparous women who gave birth vaginally. A significant shorter duration of labour was observed in the CSEA-group.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02334150.
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.