ArticleAnesthesia and pain medicine2020
Evaluation of changes in anesthetic methods for cesarean delivery: an analysis for 5 years using the big data of the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.
Article in Anesthesia and pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mode of Anesthesia During Cesarean Section and Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality: A Cohort Study.Local and regional anesthesia · 2026Article
- General anesthesia for cesarean section: are we doing it well?Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2022Review
- Association between anesthetic method and postpartum hemorrhage in Korea based on National Health Insurance Service data.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of anesthesia type on outcome measures in cesarean section in the presence of fetal macrosomia.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2022Article
- Anesthetic management of obese and morbidly obese parturients.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs an anesthesia induced during cesarean section, spinal anesthesia is preferred over general and epidural anesthesia. This study aimed to review the trend of anesthetic methods for cesarean section based on data obtained from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from 2013 to 2018.
methodsThe anesthetic methods were analyzed in 753,285 parturients who underwent a cesarean section in Korea from 2013 to 2018. We determined the association between each anesthetic method and hospital type and maternal and fetal factors. We also evaluated whether the anesthetic method was associated with the parturients' length of hospital stay.
resultsGeneral anesthesia, spinal anesthesia, and epidural anesthesia were induced in 28.8%, 47.7%, and 23.6% of parturients from 2013 to 2018, respectively. Trend analyses showed that spinal anesthesia increased from 40.0% in 2013 to 53.7% in 2018. The opposite trend applied to general anesthesia, decreasing from 37.1% in 2013 to 22.2% in 2018. The factors that were significantly associated with the anesthetic method were parturient's parity, emergency condition, gestational age, and fetal weight. The type of hospital, parturient's age, and multiple birth were also associated with the anesthetic methods. There was a strong association between general anesthesia and hospital stay longer than 7 days.
conclusionsSpinal anesthesia is currently the main anesthetic method used for cesarean delivery, and the rate of spinal anesthesia is gradually increasing in Korea.
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.