ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
A comparative study of epidural labor analgesia and natural delivery without analgesia.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. 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.
- Association between labor duration in transvaginal deliveries and the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission for newborns.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting intrapartum fever in parturients with epidural analgesia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Visual estimation of blood loss versus quantitative blood loss for maternal outcomes related to obstetrical hemorrhage.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2023Article
- Association between the use of epidural analgesia during labour and incidence of postpartum depression.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Development and Validation of Prognostic Nomogram for Postpartum Hemorrhage After Vaginal Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effects of epidural labor analgesia and natural delivery without analgesia on labor duration, pain, uterine continuous contraction time, abnormal labor process and complications.
methodsA total of 220 primiparas in our hospital were selected and divided into two groups according to whether they accepted epidural labor analgesia, including 146 cases in the study group and 74 cases in the blank group. Primiparas in the study group received epidural block analgesia, and those in the blank group received routine labor without analgesia. Duration of the first, second and third stages of labor was observed and recorded. The NRS pain score and uterine continuous contraction time were detected before and after the analgesia. The abnormal situation and complications of primiparas in the two groups were recorded.
resultsCompared with those in the blank group, the duration of the first stage of labor and the amount of postpartum hemorrhage in the study group were decreased (all P<0.001). The primiparas' NRS score in the study group was lower than that in the blank group at 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, 60 min and 120 min after analgesia (all P<0.001). The duration of uterine contractions in the study group was lower than that in the blank group at 15 min, 30 min and 60 min after analgesia (all P<0.01). Compared with those in the blank group, primiparas in the study group had a higher probability of active phase arrest in the process of labor (P<0.05). Compared with the blank group, the probability of urinary retention in the study group increased (P<0.05).
conclusionThe effect of epidural labor analgesia is better, which is conducive to shorten the time of the first stage of labor, good analgesic effect, shorter duration of the uterine contraction and higher safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34306457PMC8290643What 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.