ArticleBMC anesthesiology2022
Prevalence of risk stomach in laboring women allowed to unrestrictive oral intake: a comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Korean consensus-based recommendations for preanesthetic gastric ultrasound and anesthetic considerations for GLP-1 receptor agonist-based therapy: a consensus statement from Clinical Practice Guideline Committee of the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Review
- Ultrasound Assessment of Preoperative Gastric Contents for Predicting Aspiration Risk in Surgical Patients: A Scoping Review and Future Directions.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- All India Difficult Airway Association 2025 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult airway in obstetrics under general anaesthesia.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Gastric emptying in pregnancy and its clinical implications: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough restricting food intake during labor is recommended by guidelines, intrapartum starvation has not been popular in some regions. We conducted this comparative cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of risk stomach in non-fasted laboring women compared with fasted non-laboring women using gastric ultrasound.
methodsUltrasound examination of the antrum was performed in 50 term fasted non-laboring women before elective cesarean delivery and 50 laboring women allowed to eat and drink during active labor. Examinations consisted of the qualitative (antral grades, 0-3) and quantitative evaluation (antral cross-sectional area and calculated gastric volume) in the supine and right lateral decubitus (RLD) position. A risk stomach was defined as an antral grade ≥ 2 or grade 1 with gastric volume ≥ 1.5 ml· kg
resultsNo non-laboring women had grade ≥ 2, while 34 (68%) laboring women had grade ≥ 2. Nine (18%) non-laboring and 40 (80%) laboring women presented risk stomach (P < 0.001) (risk ratio: 4.4, 95% CI 2.4-8.2). Compared with non-laboring women, laboring women had larger antral area at "empty" stomach (grade 0) (437 mm
conclusionsThis study confirms a higher prevalence of risk stomach presents in laboring women under a liberal eating policy, gastric ultrasound is therefore useful for this risk population if general anesthesia is required unexpectedly.
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.