SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Combining Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia versus Single-Shot Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis of 5 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. 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.
- 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 · 2024Trial
- Combined spinal epidural anesthesia in obese parturients undergoing cesarean surgery : A single-blinded randomized comparison of lateral decubitus and sitting positions.Der Anaesthesist · 2021Trial
- Construction of a Nomogram Prediction Model for Intraoperative Shivering During Caesarean Section.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compared combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and single-shot spinal anesthesia (SSSA) by performing a meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS An electronic search of relevant studies was done through 2017. Primary endpoints included duration of surgery, and time for (1) sensory recovery to thoracic vertebra (T10), (2) maximal sensory, (3) motor blockade, and (4) motor recovery. Secondary endpoints were the adverse effects. RevMan 5.3 analytical software was used with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the analytic parameters. Standard deviation and mean were used to evaluate data by weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CI. RESULTS A total of 370 patients were analyzed. A similar duration of surgery was observed with CSEA and SSSA (WMD: 0.24, 95%CI: -3.41-3.89; P=0.90). Time to maximal sensory blockade (WMD: 0.96, 95%CI: -2.91-4.83), time to maximal motor blockade (WMD: 0.25, 95%CI: -2.46-2.96), time for complete motor recovery (WMD: -6.28, 95%CI: -29.42-16.86), and time for sensory recovery to T10 vertebra (WMD: 0.42, 95%CI: -11.07-11.91) were not significantly different. Adverse effects such as hypotension (OR: 1.49, 95%CI: 0.27-8.31), pruritus (OR: 0.23, 95%CI: 0.03-2.18), nausea/vomiting (OR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.12-5.99). and shivering (OR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.11-2.56) were also similar with CSEA and SSSA. CONCLUSIONS CSEA was not associated with significantly different maximal duration of sensory/motor blockade, complete motor recovery, sensory regression to T10, or adverse drug events compared to SSSA. Hence, both should be considered effective in cesarean delivery.
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.