ArticleCureus2020
Postoperative Epidural Analgesia in Cesarean Section: Comparison of Therapeutic Schemes.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Dexmedetomidine on the EDDrug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus in Comparison with Continuous Epidural Infusion for Uterine Contraction Pain Relief After Cesarean Section: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2022Trial
- Transversus Abdominis Plane Block versus Epidural Anesthesia for Pain Management Post-Caesarean Delivery: A Pilot Study.Local and regional anesthesia · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of different doses of epidural morphine coadministered with low-concentration ropivacaine after cesarean section: A retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. Its adequate control is fundamental to postpartum functional recovery, prevention of chronic pain, and postpartum depression. In this context, neuraxial analgesia has shown superior results. However, the best pharmacological regimen is still unknown. This study intended to compare the performance of three epidural therapeutic schemes (0.1% ropivacaine combined with epidural morphine vs 0.2% ropivacaine combined with epidural morphine vs morphine bolus) in pain intensity and its adverse effects in the early postoperative period of cesarean section. Methods A retrospective observational study was carried out. The sample included 204 women who underwent cesarean section after previous epidural catheter placement. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Pain intensity in rest, movement at 24 and 48 hours, and adverse effects (pruritus, nausea, sedation, respiratory depression, hypotension, urinary retention and paresthesias) were recorded. Results Statistical analysis revealed no differences in mean pain scores between groups on the first and second postoperative days. The incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the morphine bolus group. Conclusion Epidural morphine therapy is an effective option with an adequate safety profile. The addition of a local anesthetic seems to offer no benefit in this context, increasing the incidence of adverse effects.
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.