ArticleMedicine2022
Evaluation efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in second-trimester induced labor: A single-center, prospective, non-randomized, controlled study.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSecond-trimester induced labor in pregnant women was often more likely to suffer from psychological and physiological double pain. However, the analgesic management received less attention, and the optimal analgesic mode for second-trimester induced labor had not been determined. Our objective was to evaluate the feasible of epidural analgesia (EA) in second-trimester induced labor.
methodsFrom January 2020 to December 2021, Primipara who planned to undergo second-trimester induced labor in the First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University were collected. The method of labor induction was oral mifepristone + amniotic cavity injection of Ethacridine Lactate. Based on whether or not patients received epidural analgesia, which were divided into EA group (30 cases) and non-EA (NEA) group (30 cases). The primary outcome were visual analog scale (VAS) score of pain and result of follow-up, the secondary outcomes included relative clinical parameter and labor duration.
resultsVaginal induction of labor was successful in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in VAS of pain between the two groups before analgesia (P > .05), but the VAS of pain in the EA group was significantly lower than the NEA group (P < .05) after analgesia or at delivery. The following outcomes showed no statistical difference between two groups: labor duration, postpartum hemorrhage, hemorrhage ≥ 500 mL, intrapartum injury, second days hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, antibiotic therapy days, hospitalizations days, and placenta residue (P > .05). The median hospitalization costs of EA group was 4697.5 yuan, and NEA group was 3673 yuan, the difference was statistically significant (P < .001). No adverse events related to EA occurred during hospitalization, only 3 patients showed mild lumbago and back pain after follow-up to three months postpartum, which was significantly relieved after proper rest.
conclusionEA can significantly reduce the pain of parturients, which may be effective and safe in the second-trimester induced labor.
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.