ArticleJNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association
Cesarean Sections under General Anesthesia at a Tertiary Care Center in Western Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.
Article in JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of deploying non-physician anaesthesia providers on surgical access and capacity across Nepal's primary and secondary government hospitals: a quasi-experimental mixed methods study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Cesarean Section under General Anesthesia over 10 Years at Tertiary Care Center: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeneral anesthesia is feared to have adverse feto-maternal outcomes compared to neuraxial anesthesia. It is recommended to keep rate of caesarean sections under general anesthesia below 5% and 15% for elective and emergency caesarean sections respectively. This study was conducted to find out the prevalence of caesarean sections under general anesthesia at a tertiary care center in western Nepal.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among caesarean sections conducted at Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal from January 2014 to December 2017. Ethical approval was taken from the Institutional Review Committee with reference number MEMG/IRC/GA/122. All the caesarean sections conducted during this study period were included in the study using whole sampling method. Point estimate at 95% Confidence Interval was calculated along with frequency and proportion for binary data. Data for each patient was subsequently entered into an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.
resultsAmong 3613 cases, caesarean sections under general anesthesia was observed in 175 (4.84%) in our center over a period of four years at 95% Confidence Interval (4.13-5.55%). The yearly variations ranges from 2.83% to 8.99%. The rate of general anesthesia was found slightly higher in elective 31 (5.82%) as compared to emergency caesarean section 144 (4.67%).
conclusionsThe four year medical records of our institution showed fluctuating trend of caesarian sections under general anesthesia. The rate of general anesthesia for emergency caesarian section was within the recommended rate while it was slightly higher in elective caesarian section.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32335658PMC7580420What 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.