Trial reportInternational journal of general medicine2022
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Different Concentrations of Chloroprocaine with Lidocaine for Activating Epidural Analgesia During Labor.
Trial report in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of local anesthesia combinations for labor pain relief: a network meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Epidural Chloroprocaine for Breakthrough Pain During Labor Analgesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.Pain and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of chloroprocaine for activating labor analgesia and the optimal concentration compared to lidocaine. PATIENTS AND
methodsNinety-six nulliparous parturients were randomly assigned to three groups: LD group, patients received the conventional initial dose of 6 mL of 1% lidocaine; CP1.5 group, patients received 6 mL of 1.5% chloroprocaine as the initial dose; and CP1.2 group, patients received 7.5 mL of 1.2% chloroprocaine as initial dose. Labor analgesia was maintained in all patients via a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB). The primary outcome was the analgesia onset time. Secondary outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, the interval and duration of uterine contractions during the first 12 contractions, failure to reach adequate analgesia, labor and neonatal outcomes, maternal satisfaction and adverse effects.
resultsParturients in the CP1.5 and CP1.2 groups achieved a shorter onset time than those in the LD group (hazard ratio (HR) = 6.540; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.503-12.210;
conclusionChloroprocaine provided a faster onset of labor analgesia than lidocaine. Thus, 6 mL of 1.5% chloroprocaine might be a superior volume and concentration regimen to 7.5 mL of 1.2% chloroprocaine for activating labor analgesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT: The study was registered prior to subject enrollment at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100049113).
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.