SynthesisScientific reports2021
A systematic review with network meta-analysis on mono strategy of anaesthesia for preeclampsia in caesarean section.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy during cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia in pregnant women with heart disease: a randomized controlled trial].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2024Trial
- Association of Pre-Eclampsia with Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Postoperative Complications in Cesarean Delivery Under General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Eclampsia.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to reveal the effects of anaesthesia strategies on maternal mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, vasopressor consumption, adverse events, and neonatal resuscitation when women with preeclampsia (PE) undergo caesarean section (CS). Three major databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCSs). Two authors independently screened, extracted, and checked eligibility and outcome data. Outcomes involved MAP, vasopressor use, maternal adverse events, APGAR scores, and neonatal resuscitation. Pooled estimates were carried out by contrast-based network meta-analysis, and pooled effect sizes were presented with 95% confidence interval (CI). Eleven RCTs and one PCS (n = 782) formed three-node network meta-analysis, and non-significant differences were observed in MAP, 5-min APGAR score, and neonatal intubation rate among the three anaesthesia strategies. General anaesthesia had significantly lower vasopressor consumption than spinal anaesthesia did (standardised mean difference = - 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.76 to - 0.63), but it had higher maternal adverse event rate (risk ratio = 2.00, 95% CI 1.16-3.47). Because no optimal anaesthesia strategy has been shown to achieve a balanced maternal and neonatal outcome, therefore a shared decision-making process may be required regarding the most suitable choice of anaesthetic strategy for individual preeclamptic mother undergoing CS. Future larger studies may need to focus on evaluating the role of vasopressors on maternal hemodynamic as well as factors affecting maternal outcomes for different anaesthetic techniques in preeclamptic women undergoing CS.
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.