ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Comparison of the labor curves with and without combined spinal-epidural analgesia in nulliparous women- a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association between fetal head malrotation and labor analgesia: a propensity score-matched analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Effects of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and epidural analgesia on pain and blood pressure in preeclamptic women undergoing painless delivery.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Labor epidural analgesia versus without labor epidural analgesia for multiparous women: a retrospective case control study.BMC anesthesiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuraxial labor analgesia is known to increase the rate of instrumental delivery and prolong the second stage of labor; however, there is no standard method to evaluate the progress of labor under analgesia. Friedman curve is considered the gold standard for evaluating the progress of labor. However, it included not only neuraxial labor analgesia but also labor without analgesia. Thus we compared the labor curves of primiparous women undergoing labor with and without neuraxial labor analgesia, to understand the progress of labor in both groups and to arrive at a standard curve to monitor the progress of labor under neuraxial analgesia.
methodsPrimiparous women with cephalic singleton pregnancies who delivered at term from 2016 to 2017 were included. Two hundred patients who opted for combined spinal-epidural (CSE) labor analgesia were included in the CSE group and 200 patients who did not undergo CSE were included in the non-CSE group. In all, 400 cases were examined retrospectively. The evaluation parameters were cervical dilation and fetal station, and we calculated the average value per hour to plot the labor curves.
resultsThe labor curve of the non-CSE group was significantly different from the Friedman curve. In the CSE group, the time from 4 cm dilation of the cervix to full dilation was 15 h; in addition, the speed of cervical dilation was different from that in the non-CSE group. The progress of labor in the CSE group was faster than that in the non-CSE group during the latent phase; however, the progress in the CSE group was slower than that in the non-CSE group during the active phase.
conclusionsNeuraxial labor analgesia results in early cervical dilation and descent of the fetal head; thus, appropriate advance planning to manage the delivery may be essential.
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.