Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31080953›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2019

Effectiveness of P6 Stimulation for Reduction of Nausea and Vomiting During Caesarean Section Under Combined Spinal-Epidural Anaesthesia: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Danielle Levin, Shaul Cohen, Scott Mellender, Ushma Shah, Paul Kang, Adil Mohiuddin, Rong Zhao, Geza Kiss, Enrique Pantin

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Danielle LevinRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5617-1907
Shaul CohenRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1168-1337
Scott MellenderRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9451-7195
Ushma ShahRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5716-0721
Paul KangFamily Medicine Resident, Hunterdon Medical Center, Flemington, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5805-2899
Adil MohiuddinEmergency Room Physician, Inspire Medical, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5516-4681
Rong ZhaoRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8389-3454
Geza KissRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8777-9755
Enrique PantinRutgers - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4995-0168
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USJohnson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveObstetric patients who receive combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia for elective caesarean section (CS) frequently experience intraoperative nausea and vomiting (N&V). Prophylactic therapy with antiemetic agents can have multiple adverse effects to the mother and baby. We designed a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of electrical P6 stimulation for prophylactic N&V treatment for scheduled elective CS performed under CSE anaesthesia.

methodsFollowing the Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, a total of 180 patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (1) P6 stimulation (via a peripheral nerve stimulator), (2) intravenous (IV) antiemetics (metoclopramide and ondansetron), and (3) control (no IV antiemetic medications and no P6 stimulation), with 60 parturients in each group.

resultsSignificantly fewer patients experienced intraoperative N&V in the P6 group (nausea 36.7% and vomiting 13.3%) and IV antiemetic group (nausea 23.3% and vomiting 16.7%) than those in the control group (nausea 73.3% and vomiting 45%; p<0.001). In addition, significantly fewer patients required rescue antiemetic medications in the P6 group (35%) and the IV antiemetic group (31.7%) than those in the control group (73.3%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the overall anaesthetic care satisfaction reported between the three study groups.

conclusionOur data suggest that P6 stimulation is as simple and as effective as our routine prophylactic IV antiemetic treatment for prevention of N&V during CS performed under CSE anaesthesia that could be of great interest to patients and obstetric anaesthesiologists who prefer treatments with fewer potential side effects.

Indexed as

Antiemeticscaesarean sectioncombined spinal epidural anaesthesianauseaP6 stimulationvomiting

Identifiers

PMID31080953
PMCPMC6499052
OpenAlexW2911984449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.