ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2015
Retrospective Evaluation of Anaesthetic Techniques for Caesarean.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Choice of anesthesia technique for emergent cesarean sections during COVID-19 era in a tertiary care hospital.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023Article
- Cesarean Sections under General Anesthesia at a Tertiary Care Center in Western Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the maternal, foetal and neonatal effects of anaesthetic techniques used in caesarean sections (C/S) retrospectively over 6 years at the Hospital of Medical School of Dokuz Eylül University and to compare the results with the literature from Turkey and developed countries.
methodsAfter obtaining approval from the ethics committee, anaesthetic and gestational data from all caesarean operations performed over a 6-year period between 2005 and 2010 was retrospectively obtained from hospital archives.
resultsDuring this period, a total of 10,819 labours was conducted and C/S ratio was 55% with 5953 patients. General anaesthesia was performed in 1479 patients (24.8%) and regional anaesthesia was performed in 4474 patients (75.2%) [Spinal anaesthesia for 1203 patients (26.9%), epidural anaesthesia for 830 patients (18.5%) and combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia for 2441 patients (54.6%)]. In 2010, regional anaesthesia ratio increased to 84.6%, whereas in 2005, it was 63.8%. Regional anaesthesia was used significantly more often in both elective and urgent patients (82% elective and 65.2% emergency). Because of failed regional anaesthesia or surgical complications, anaesthesia was changed to general anaesthesia in 215 patients (4.8%). APGAR scores in 1 and 5 min were significantly higher with regional anaesthesia when compared with general anaesthesia.
conclusionRegional anaesthesia rate for C/S patients in the Hospital of Medical School of Dokuz Eylül University is increased and is higher than Turkey's average; but these figures are still lower than those in the developed countries.
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.