Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34709386›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Association of Epidural Analgesia in Women in Labor With Neonatal and Childhood Outcomes in a Population Cohort.

Rachel J Kearns, Martin Shaw, Piotr S Gromski, Stamatina Iliodromiti, Deborah A Lawlor, Scott M Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Association of epidural analgesia in labor with neurodevelopmental outcomes in premature infants born at <29 weeks of gestational age.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rachel J KearnsDepartment of Anesthesia, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom.
Martin ShawDepartment of Medical Physics, National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde, United Kingdom.
Piotr S GromskiSchool of Medicine, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Stamatina IliodromitiCentre for Women's Health, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University, London, United Kingdom.
Deborah A LawlorMedical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, United Kingdom.
Scott M NelsonSchool of Medicine, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/6Medical Research Council MR/N015177/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although use of epidural analgesia during labor is safe, detailed information about its association with neonatal and child outcomes is limited. Objective: To investigate the association of labor epidural analgesia with neonatal outcomes and childhood development during the first 1000 days of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used Scottish National Health Service hospital administrative data of all 435 281 singleton live births in Scotland between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up over the first 1000 days of life. All 435 281 mother-infant pairs delivering between 24 weeks 0 days and 43 weeks 6 days' gestation who were in active labor with cephalic presentation and who delivered vaginally or via unplanned cesarean delivery were included. Stillbirths and infants with known congenital anomalies were excluded. Data were analyzed between August 1, 2020, and July 23, 2021. Exposures: Epidural analgesia in labor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Neonatal outcomes included resuscitation, Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, and neonatal unit admission. Childhood development measures (gross and fine motor function, communication, and social functioning) were obtained from standardized national childhood surveillance assessments performed at 2 years. Results: This study included a total of 435 281 live births with cephalic presentation in labor (median gestational age at delivery, 40 weeks [IQR, 39-41 weeks]; 221 153 male infants [50.8%]), of which 94 323 (21.7%) had labor epidural. Epidural analgesia was associated with a reduction in spontaneous vaginal deliveries (confounder-adjusted [Cadj] relative risk [RR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50), an increased risk of neonatal resuscitation (Cadj RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11), and an increased risk of neonatal unit admission (Cadj RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17). With additional analysis for mediation by mode of delivery (CMadj), these associations were reversed (CMadj RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86 for neonatal resuscitation and CMadj RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97 for neonatal unit admission). Epidural analgesia was associated with a reduced risk of an Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes in both confounder and confounder/mediation analyses. Epidural analgesia was associated with a reduced risk of having developmental concern in any domain at 2 years in confounder and confounder/mediation analyses (CMadj RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98), with specifically fewer concerns regarding communication (CMadj RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) and fine motor skills (CMadj RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that labor epidural analgesia is not independently associated with adverse neonatal or childhood development outcomes. Associations with neonatal resuscitation and admission were likely mediated by mode of delivery.

Indexed as

Analgesia, EpiduralAnalgesia, ObstetricalDelivery, ObstetricOutcome Assessment, Health CareApgar ScoreCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansPregnancyScotlandState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID34709386
PMCPMC8554639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.