ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
The Effect of Epidural Analgesia on Labour and Neonatal and Maternal Outcomes in 1, 2a, 3, and 4a Robson's Classes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dural Puncture Epidural, Standard Epidural, and No Epidural: Comparative Effects on Labor Progression and Neonatal Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Determinants of labor epidural analgesia uptake and associations with maternal-neonatal outcomes: a stratified cohort study with risk prediction modeling.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Relation between epidural analgesia and perinatal outcomes on Robson class 2a.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of epidural analgesia on outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Effects of early- and late- neuraxial analgesia on multiparous women: a retrospective monocentric study.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- The impact of epidural analgesia on delivery mode in Robson class 1 women: a retrospective cohort study.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar epidural analgesia (EA) is the most commonly used method for reducing labour pain, but its impact on the duration of the second stage of labour and on neonatal and maternal outcomes remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to examine whether EA affected the course and the outcomes of labour among patients divided according to the Robson-10 group classification system. Methods: Patients of Robson’s classes 1, 2a, 3, and 4a were divided into either the EA group or the non-epidural analgesia (NEA) group. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed to balance the intergroup differences. The primary goal was to analyse the duration of the second stage of labour. The secondary goals were to evaluate neonatal and maternal outcomes. Results: In total, 21,808 cases were analysed. The second stage of labour for all groups was prolonged using EA (p < 0.05) without statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes. EA resulted in a lower rate of episiotomies in nulliparous patients, with a higher rate of operative vaginal deliveries (OVD) (p < 0.05) and Caesarean sections (CS) (p < 0.05) in some classes. Conclusions: EA prolonged the duration of labour without affecting neonatal outcomes and reduced the rate of episiotomies, but also increased the rate of OVDs.
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.