ArticleSAGE open medicine2022
Analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block versus conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following first-trimester incomplete miscarriages: A randomised controlled trial.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Diagnosis and management of early pregnancy loss.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Review
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
Objective: To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of paracervical block and conscious sedation in the surgical evacuation of the uterus following a first-trimester miscarriage. Methods: This is an open-label, randomised control trial comparing pain relief by paracervical block versus conscious sedation during manual vacuum aspiration of first-trimester incomplete miscarriages. One-hundred and sixty-two women were equally randomised into two groups. Group A (paracervical group) received a paracervical block of 4 ml of lidocaine each at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. Group B (conscious sedation group) received intravenous 30 mg pentazocine and 10 mg diazepam. Data obtained were presented using a frequency table, student t-test, chi-square and Mann-Whitney test and bar chart. A P-value of ⩽0.05 was taken to be statistically significant. Results: The mean pain score was lower in the paracervical block group compared to the conscious sedation group (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction between the groups (P ⩾ 0.05). Conscious sedation had more negative side effects compared to paracervical block which was significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Paracervical block has better pain control compared with conscious sedation and has a good side effect profile. Trial registration: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (registered trial no. PACTR202108841661192). Synopsis: Paracervical block for manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) during first-trimester miscarriage is associated with less pain among women compared with conscious sedation.
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.