Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28974849›Full record

Trial reportMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2017

Comparison of Hemodynamic Changes in Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia Versus Epidural Anesthesia Below the T10 Sensory Level in Unilateral Surgeries: a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Alieh Zamani Kiasari, Anahita Babaei, Abbas Alipour, Shima Motevalli, Afshin Gholipour Baradari

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. EDFrontiers in medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alieh Zamani KiasariDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Anahita BabaeiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Abbas AlipourDepartment of Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Shima MotevalliDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Afshin Gholipour BaradariDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnilateral spinal anesthesia is used to limit the spread of block. The aim of the present study was to compare hemodynamic changes and complications in unilateral spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia below the T10 sensory level in unilateral surgeries. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this double-blind randomized clinical trial in total 120 patients were randomly divided into a unilateral spinal anesthesia group (Group S) and an epidural anesthesia group (Group E). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rates were measured before and immediately after the administration of spinal or epidural anesthesia and then at 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-min intervals. The rates of prescribed ephedrine and intraoperative respiratory arrest were recorded, in addition to postoperative nausea and vomiting, puncture headaches, and back pain during the first 24 h after the surgery.

resultsSBP, DBP, and MAP values initially showed a statistically significant downward trend in both groups (p = 0.001). The prevalence of hypotension in Group S was lower than in Group E, and the observed difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The mean heart rate change in Group E was greater than in Group S, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). The incidence of prescribed ephedrine in response to a critical hemodynamic situation was 5.1% (n = 3) and 75% (n = 42) in Group S and Group E, respectively (p = 0.0001). The incidence of headaches, back pain, and nausea/vomiting was 15.3%, 15.3%, and 10.2% in Group S and 1.8%, 30.4%, and 5.4% in Group E (p = 0.017, 0.07, and 0.49, respectively).

conclusionHemodynamic stability, reduced administration of ephedrine, a simple, low-cost technique, and adequate sensory and motor block are major advantages of unilateral spinal anesthesia.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, SpinalAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodEphedrineFemaleHemodynamicsHumansHypotensionIranMaleMiddle AgedPatient PositioningTreatment OutcomeEphedrineEpidural anesthesiaHemodynamicSpinal anesthesiaUnilateral

Identifiers

PMID28974849
PMCPMC5585788
OpenAlexW2743235840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.