ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Effect of anesthesia choice on hemodynamic stability and fetomaternal outcome of the preeclamptic patient undergoing cesarean section.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic Changes During Cesarean Section Under Spinal Anesthesia in Normotensive and Hypertensive Pregnant Women-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Association of Pre-Eclampsia with Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Postoperative Complications in Cesarean Delivery Under General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The main aim of this study is to compare hemodynamic stability and feto-maternal outcome between general and spinal anesthesia in pre-eclampsia patients undergoing C/S. Methods: A prospective cohort study was used with a calculated sample size of 266. Comparison of numerical variables between study groups was done using unpaired student t-test and Manny Whitney U test for symmetric and asymmetric data respectively. A P-value <0.05 considered significant. Result: There is a comparable distribution of socio-demographic, obstetric variables, and baseline hemodynamic variables between groups. The change in a hemodynamic variable from baseline and during the first 24 h was also comparable between groups. The numbers of ICU admission were comparable between groups (8.03% vs. 10.41%, p = 0.549) in spinal and general anesthesia groups respectively. With regards to hospital stay patients in general anesthesia groups had longer hospital stay 5.92 days compared to 4.67 days in the spinal anesthesia group, with a statistically significant difference,(p = 0.024). The Spinal anesthesia group showed lower maternal mortality 2.6% compared to 14.8% in the general anesthesia group during the first 48th hour (p = 0.027). At the first 48 h only 7.14% of neonates in the spinal anesthesia group, and 16.6% o in the general anesthesia group had reported dead (p = 0.315). Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia (SA) was alternative to general anesthesia regarding hemodynamic stability. Regarding maternal outcome, SA overall shows a better maternal outcome during the first 48 h. The numbers of ICU admission were comparable between groups. The SA group showed lower maternal mortality at the 48th hr.
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.