Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32337166›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2020

Comparing the Effect of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine in Cesarean Delivery with Spinal Anesthesia.

Alireza Olapour, Reza Akhondzadeh, Mahbobe Rashidi, Mohammadreza Gousheh, Raziyeh Homayoon

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Comparative efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaineWorld journal of methodology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alireza OlapourDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Reza AkhondzadehDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Mahbobe RashidiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Mohammadreza GoushehDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Raziyeh HomayoonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpinal anesthesia is the most common technique used for cesarean delivery due to some advantages compared to regional anesthesia. It is easily performed and provides a rapid onset of block. Though bupivacaine is a generally used long-acting amide type local anesthetic drug for spinal anesthesia, ropivacaine may sometimes be selected.

objectivesThis prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was aimed at comparing clinical efficacy and safety between ropivacaine and bupivacaine during cesarean section.

methodsAfter getting ethical committee approval and written informed consent, 65 women who referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital of Ahvaz, Iran in 2018 were chosen for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. They were randomly allocated to receive either ropivacaine 1% (n = 33) or bupivacaine 0.5% (n = 32). Afterwards, the differences in the anesthetic efficacy, vital signs, and hemodynamics of participants between the two groups were recorded.

resultsDuration of sensory block was shorter in the ropivacaine group than bupivacaine group (132.5 ± 21.6 min vs. 175.8 ± 26.2 min; P < 0.001). Ropivacaine also produced a shorter duration of motor blockade than bupivacaine (124.8 ± 20.2 min vs. 168.2 ± 21.7 min; P < 0.001). There is no difference between the two groups in terms of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but the heart rate of patients in the bupivacaine group is significantly higher than the ropivacaine group.

conclusionsThe results suggest that ropivacaine and bupivacaine are two efficient drugs in anesthesia in the cesarean section, ropivacaine is a better choice due to little influence on the hemodynamics and shorter duration of sensory block and motor block which are useful for the recovery and also safe to the patients.

Indexed as

BupivacaineCaesarean SectionMotor BlockRopivacaineSensory BlockSpinal Anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID32337166
PMCPMC7144247
OpenAlexW3000279149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.