ArticleScientific reports2021
Moderate rate of implementation of spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: does it improve neonatal well-being? A case-control study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnitude and associated factors of intraoperative nausea and vomiting among parturients who gave birth with cesarean section under spinal anesthesia at South Gondar zone Hospitals, Ethiopia.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Before 2013, almost none of the cesarean section (CS) deliveries at our institution were performed with spinal anesthesia (SA), but after 2013 SA became the first-choice anesthesia for CS because it achieved better neonatal outcomes. However, the current rate of SA implementation at our institution was estimated to be approx. 60-70%, which is intermediate between these at other institutions in Japan or in other countries. This raises a question: What rate of SA use among CS cases achieves the best neonatal outcomes? To answer this question, we conducted this single-center case-control study with 1326 CS cases between 1994 and 2017 and compared the neonatal outcomes before to those after 2013. The logistic regression models were prepared to estimate the risk of birth asphyxia defined as a 5-min Apgar of < 7, associated with eight potential confounders, including the modified anesthetic protocol. The modified protocol was not a significant independent factor for neonatal asphyxia, indicating that our moderate SA priority protocol did not improve the neonatal outcomes even when compared to the outcomes at a 0% SA rate. A > 70% rate of SA implementation may be needed to provide better neonatal outcomes.
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.