ArticleRomanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care2021
Epidural Analgesia for Labour: Comparing the Effects of Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) and Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) on Obstetric Outcomes.
Article in Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care, 2021. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In the last few years there is a trend of transiting from the continuous epidural infusion (CEI) method for epidural analgesia to a new method - programmed intermittent epidural analgesia (PIEB). This change improves the quality of epidural analgesia, thanks to an increased spread of the anaesthetic in the epidural space and higher maternal satisfaction. Nevertheless, we must make sure that such change of method does not lead to worse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective observational case control study. We compared several obstetrical outcomes between the CEI and PIEB groups, such as the rates of instrumental delivery, rates of caesarean section, duration of first and second stages of labour well as APGAR scores. We further segmented the subjects and examined them in groups of nulliparous and multiparous parturients. Results: 2696 parturients were included in this study: 1387 (51.4%) parturients in the CEI group and 1309 (48.6%) parturients in the PIEB group. No significant difference was found in instrumental or caesarean section delivery rates between groups. This result held even when the groups were differentiated between nulliparous and multiparous. No differences were revealed regarding first and second stage duration or APGAR scores. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates transition from the CEI to the PIEB method does not lead to any statistically significant effects on either obstetric or neonatal outcomes.
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.