Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26512604›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2015

Comparison Between the Use of Ropivacaine Alone and Ropivacaine With Sufentanil in Epidural Labor Analgesia.

Xian Wang, Shiqin Xu, Xiang Qin, Xiaohong Li, Shan-Wu Feng, Yusheng Liu, Wei Wang, Xirong Guo, Rong Shen, Xiaofeng Shen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Effectiveness and Safety of Ropivacaine and Medium-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Cesarean Section.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Median Effective Concentration (ECFrontiers in medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xian WangFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China (XW, SX, XQ, XL, SWF, YL, WW, XS, FW); Institute of Pediatrics, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China (XG, RS); and Division of Neuroscience, The Bonoi Academy of Science and Education, Chapel Hill, NC, USA (FW).
Shiqin Xu
Xiang Qin
Xiaohong Li
Shan-Wu Feng
Yusheng Liu
Wei Wang
Xirong Guo
Rong Shen
Xiaofeng Shen
Fuzhou Wang
Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of the sole local anesthetic ropivacaine with the combination of both local anesthetic ropivacaine and opioidergic analgesic sufentanil given epidurally on the labor pain control.After institutional review board approval and patient consent, a total of 500 nulliparas requesting epidural labor analgesia were enrolled and 481 eventually were randomized into 2 groups: a sole local anesthetic group (ropivacaine 0.125%) and a combination of local anesthetic and opioidergic analgesic group (0.125% ropivacaine + 0.3 μg/mL sufentanil). After the test dose, a 10-mL epidural analgesic solution was given in a single bolus, followed by intermittent bolus injection of 10 to 15 mL of the solution. The primary outcome was the analgesic efficacy measured using Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) of pain. Other maternal and infant variables were evaluated as secondary outcomes.A total of 346 participants completed the study. The median NRS pain score during the 1st stage of labor was significantly lower in the combination group 2.2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.8-2.7) comparing to the sole local analgesic group 2.4 (IQR: 2.0-2.8) (P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in NRS pain score prior epidural analgesia and during the 2nd stage of labor. Patients in both groups rated same satisfaction of analgesia. Patients in the sole local analgesic group experienced fewer side effects than those in the combination group (37.7% vs 47.2%, P = 0.082). The individual analgesia-related cost in the sole local analgesic group was less ($5.7 ± 2.06) than that in the combination group ($9.76 ± 3.54) (P < 0.0001). The incidence of 1-minute Apgar ≤ 7 was lower in the sole local analgesic group 2 (1.2%) than the combination group 10 (5.5%) (P = 0.038). No difference was found between other secondary outcomes.The sole local anesthetic ropivacaine produces a comparable labor analgesic effect as the combination of both local anesthetic ropivacaine and opioidergic analgesic sufentanil at different stages of labor (ΔNRS = 0.2) but the former has less side effects, lower cost, and less incidence of lower 1-minute Apgar scoring. These results imply the necessity of a systematic reevaluation of epidural labor analgesia with sole local anesthetics against combination regimens of local anesthetics and other opioids.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, EpiduralLabor, ObstetricAdultAmidesFemaleHumansPregnancyRopivacaineSufentanilAmidesRopivacaineSufentanil

Identifiers

PMID26512604
PMCPMC4985418
OpenAlexW2331965835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.