ArticleInternational journal of women's health2019
A randomized controlled trial comparing early versus late oral feeding after cesarean section under regional anesthesia.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early oral feeding within two hours for parturients compared with delayed oral feeding after cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- [Effects of Early Oral Feeding versus Delayed Oral Feeding on Bowel Function, Gastrointestinal Complications and Surgical Recovery after Cesarean Section under Regional Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis].Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of varied feeding protocols on gastrointestinal function recovery in the early postoperative period following repeat cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Paula Method Versus Gum Chewing for Gastrointestinal Reactivation After Cesarean Delivery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy of 3 Adjuvant Medications Used in Combination with Intrathecal Bupivacaine for Caesarian Section Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2022Article
- Enhanced Recovery After Cesarean: Current and Emerging Trends.Current anesthesiology reports · 2021Review
- Perioperative fasting and feeding in adults, obstetric, paediatric and bariatric population: Practice Guidelines from the Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Maternal Microbiota, Cortisol Concentration, and Post-Partum Weight Recovery are Dependent on Mode of Delivery.Nutrients · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the return of bowel movements in regionally anesthetized women undergoing cesarean section (C-section) given Early Oral Feeding (EOF) to that of women given Late Oral Feeding (LOF). Secondary outcomes of maternal satisfaction and gastrointestinal complications were also examined.
methodsIn a single-blinded randomized controlled trial (TCTR20181202001), 148 singleton pregnant women undergoing elective C-sections with regional anesthesia were assigned to receive either EOF or LOF. Participants began to sip water at 6-8 hrs or more than 12 hrs post-operation, for EOF or LOF respectively. Participants were then placed onto a stepping diet as tolerated. Participants failing to tolerate the stepping diet or those having surgical complications were excluded from the study.
resultsAfter exclusion, 69 women remained in the EOF group and 67 in the LOF group. The ages of participants ranged from 19 to 42, with a mean of 32.07. There was no-loss follow up and no significant difference in patient characteristics, except the site of the surgical incision. Participants given EOF were more likely to experience bowel sound the next morning than patients given LOF (EOF 87.0%, LOF 44.8%,
conclusionThe EOF group experienced an earlier return of bowel movement and greater maternal satisfaction than the LOF group, with no difference in gastrointestinal complications. These findings support the recommendation of EOF for women who undergo uncomplicated C-sections under regional anesthesia.
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.