Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31308355›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019

Comparison of Effects of General Anesthesia and Combined Spinal/Epidural Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery on Umbilical Cord Blood Gas Values: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Yi Chen, Weiwei Liu, Xuan Gong, Qiuju Cheng

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Fetal and Maternal Responses to Dexmedetomidine Intrathecal Application During Cesarean Section: A Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2021
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yi ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First People's Hospital of Jingzhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou, Hubei, China (mainland).
Weiwei LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First People's Hospital of Jingzhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou, Hubei, China (mainland).
Xuan GongDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First People's Hospital of Jingzhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou, Hubei, China (mainland).
Qiuju ChengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yangtze University · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of general anesthesia in cesarean section on the umbilical cord blood gas values and intraoperative hemodynamics of parturient women. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 112 parturient women who received cesarean section were eventually randomized into 2 groups, GA (general anesthesia) group (n=56), and SE (combined spinal and epidural anesthesia) group (n=56). The umbilical cord blood gas values, postpartum Apgar score, intraoperative blood loss, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, total operative time, time intervals from anesthesia to delivery and from skin incision to delivery, the incidences of adverse reactions and neonatal asphyxia, and the postoperative patient satisfaction were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in total operative time, Apgar score, neonatal asphyxia rate, umbilical arterial and venous cord blood gas values, intraoperative blood loss, and time interval from skin incision to delivery (all P˃0.05). The GA group was significantly shorter in the time interval from anesthesia to delivery than the SE group (P˂0.05). The incidences of nausea, vomiting, and chills in the GA group were significantly lower than those in the SE group (all P˂0.05). The GA group was significantly higher in postoperative patient satisfaction than the SE group (P˂0.05). CONCLUSIONS General anesthesia has little impact on the umbilical cord blood gas values and Apgar score, and ensures better hemodynamic stability in cesarean section. Moreover, general anesthesia is characterized by rapid induction and is therefore valuable for use in clinical procedures.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthesia, EpiduralAnesthesia, GeneralAnesthesia, SpinalApgar ScoreBlood Gas AnalysisCesarean SectionChinaDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFetal BloodHemodynamicsHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID31308355
PMCPMC6652376
OpenAlexW2958713193

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.