ReviewDer Anaesthesist2021
[S3 guidelines on "full-term vaginal birth" from an anesthesiological perspective : Worthwhile knowledge for anesthesiologists].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The publication of the new S3 guidelines on "full-term vaginal birth" and the guidelines on cesarean section, also published in 2020, provide further steps towards the promotion of evidence-based medicine in obstetrics, even if the exact configuration of neonatal monitoring during birth, in particular, is still the subject of current discussions. The multiprofessionality in the medical supervision of a birth is also fundamentally well-represented in the compilation of the S3 guidelines by the participating actors and specialist societies. Important from an anesthesiological perspective is the fact that neuraxial procedures still represent the gold standard in obstetric analgesia. With remifentanil PCA an alternative option is available that enables a reliable analgesia to be accomplished, e.g. when there are contraindications to performing neuraxial methods, if this is appropriate under the prevailing circumstances (1:1 support and appropriate monitoring). During an uncomplicated birth the strict fasting rules are relaxed. Overall, the guidelines underline the importance of self-determination and self-control for the expectant mother and give the highest priority to the safety and well-being of mother and child; however, this presupposes that the expectant mother is sufficiently informed about the value of neuraxial analgesia. For this it appears to be of importance to initiate information proposals, which go beyond the usual information sessions for parents that are often organized exclusively by midwives.
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.