Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30219195›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)

[Combined spinal-epidural block for labor analgesia. Comparative study with continuous epidural block].

Angélica de Fátima de Assunção Braga, Vanessa Henriques Carvalho, Franklin Sarmento da Silva Braga, Rosa Inês Costa Pereira

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The significance of different intervertebral spaces in combined spinal epidural anesthesia in cesarean section.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Parturition in Mammals: Animal Models, Pain and Distress.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angélica de Fátima de Assunção BragaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Departamento de Anestesiologia, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
Vanessa Henriques CarvalhoUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Departamento de Anestesiologia, Campinas, SP, Brasil. Electronic address: vanessahcarvalho74@gmail.com.
Franklin Sarmento da Silva BragaUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Departamento de Anestesiologia, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
Rosa Inês Costa PereiraUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Departamento de Anestesiologia, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLumbar epidural block is an effective and routinely used technique for labor pain relief, and the combined spinal-epidural block has the benefit of using lower doses of local anesthetics and rapid onset of analgesia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two anesthetic techniques: combined spinal-epidural block and continuous epidural block in pregnant women for labor analgesia.

methodsEighty patients, ASA II and III, with cephalic presentation and cervical dilation between 5 and 6 centimeters, undergoing labor analgesia, allocated in two groups according to the anesthetic technique: combined spinal-epidural (GI) and continuous epidural (GII). Pain severity before the blockade, time to complete analgesia, degree of motor blockade, time to full cervical dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, pain severity during the 1

resultsAt the time of anesthesia, pain severity was similar in both groups. Pain relief was faster in GI (4.5±1.5min) when compared to GII (11.6±4.6min) p=0.01; pain scores in the first and second stages of delivery were lower in GI (0.9±0.3 and 1.8±0.7, respectively) when compared to GII (1.9±0.6 and 2.2±0.5, respectively), with p=0.01 only in the first stage of labor; there was need for local anesthetics supplementation in GII; there were more frequent spontaneous deliveries in GI (80% of patients) than in GII (50%) (p=0.045) and more frequent use of instrumental (p=0.03) in GII (12 patients) compared to GI (4 patients); the frequency of cesarean deliveries was significantly higher (p=0.02) in Group II than in Group I, with 4 cases in GI and 8 cases in GII; absence of maternal cardiocirculatory and respiratory changes and neonatal repercussions; more frequent pruritus in GI (10 patients) and (0 patients in GII) (p=0.02).

conclusionThe combined blockade proved to be effective with better quality of analgesia and greater comfort for pregnant women, constituting a good option for the practice of obstetric analgesia.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, SpinalAnalgesia, ObstetricalCombined Modality TherapyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansNerve BlockPregnancyTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAnalgesia de partoAnestesia espinhalCombined spinal‐epiduralContinuous epiduralFetal and obstetric outcomesLabor analgesiaPeridural contínuaRaquiperidural combinadaResultados fetais e obstétricosSpinal anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID30219195
PMCPMC9391717
OpenAlexW2891274528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.