Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34221934›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2021

Comparison of Spinal Versus Epidural Analgesia for Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Double Blinded Clinical Trial.

Farnad Imani, Sarah Lotfi, Javad Aminisaman, Afshar Shahmohamadi, Abbas Ahmadi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Farnad ImaniPain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-0772
Sarah LotfiPain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1553-0760
Javad AminisamanKermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1553-0760
Afshar ShahmohamadiKermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1553-0760
Abbas AhmadiPain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3080-2744
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IRQom University of Medical Science and Health Services · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, one of the problems in developing countries is pregnant women who insist on cesarean section for fear of painful vaginal delivery. There are various methods to reduce labor pain, including medical and non-medical methods. Neuraxial analgesia is classified as one of the best ways to reduce labor pain. Epidural analgesia is a classic and popular procedure to decrease labor pain. Nevertheless, other methods, such as spinal or combined spinal-epidural analgesia, is more effective compared with the epidural.

objectivesIn this study, we investigated a single intrathecal versus epidural injection in pregnant women during childbirth.

methodsIn our research, after obtaining informed consent, the patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups: epidural and spinal. Each group contained 50 parturient women in advanced labor. In the epidural group, 2.5 mL isobaric bupivacaine 0.5%, sufentanil (0.2 mcg/mL), and 7 mL saline 0.9% were injected by an 18-gauge Tuohy needle at the L4-5 or L5-S1 intervertebral space, and in the spinal group, 0.5 mL isobaric bupivacaine 0.5%, 2.5 mcg sufentanil, and 0.5 mL saline 0.9% were injected by a 25-gauge pencil-point Quincke needle at the L4-5 or L5-S1 intervertebral spaces. For pain intensity, the visual analog scale (VAS) was used at serial intervals, and other variables, such as the onset and duration of analgesia, hypotension, neonatal APGAR score, fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and other variables were examined.

resultsThe mean time to onset analgesic effect was 4.6 min in the spinal group compared with 12.5 minutes in the epidural (P < 0.001). Duration of analgesia was 121 minutes in the spinal group compared with 104 min in the epidural group (P < 0.001). The time to reach the maximum block was 8.4 min in the spinal group vs. 22.2 min in the epidural group (P < 0.001). The duration of the second and third gestation stages was the same in both groups.

conclusionsSpinal analgesia is short and easy to perform and does not require advanced equipment and technical experience. Spinal analgesia can be a good option for labor analgesia and leads to achieving a lower pain score than epidural analgesia.

Indexed as

EpiduralLabour AnalgesiaPainSensory BlockSpinal

Identifiers

PMID34221934
PMCPMC8241817
OpenAlexW3135426366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.