ReviewCureus2022
Efficacy and Safety of Carbetocin Versus Misoprostol in Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Preoperative Melatonin for Women Undergoing Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Efficacy and safety of rectal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin on reducing blood loss in cesarean section: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the absence of comprehensive data investigating carbetocin versus misoprostol for reducing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) during cesarean section (CS), we performed this investigation to compare the efficiency and side events of carbetocin versus misoprostol in the protection and reduction of PPH for women who underwent CS. From inception to September 2022, we depended on searching through various databases for eligible trials involving Cochrane, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. From the efficacy prospect, we found that carbetocin substantially decreased intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), hemoglobin/hematocrit levels (p<0.001), and the need for blood transfusion (p=0.002)/additional surgical interventions (p=0.003) than misoprostol. However, we revealed no substantial variation between both drugs for the need for additional uterotonic agents (p=0.08). From the safety prospect, we found that incidences of fever (p=0.002), heat sensation (p=0.007), metallic taste (p=0.01), and shivering (p=0.0002) were lower in carbetocin administration than in misoprostol. However, headache (p=0.34) and palpitation (p=0.11) incidences revealed no substantial variation between both drugs. In conclusion, from the efficacy and safety prospect, for women who underwent CS, carbetocin is more effective and safer in preventing and reducing PPH than misoprostol.
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.