Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2024
Programmed intermittent epidural bolus as an ideal method for labor analgesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of analgesic effects between programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion after cesarean section: a randomized controlled study.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- From labor to surgery: expanding the role of programmed intermittent epidural bolus beyond obstetric.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- A Systematic Review of Contemporary and Emerging Analgesia Techniques for Natural Labor-Patient-Centered Approaches and Technological Advances.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) is effective for labor analgesia, an appropriate flow rate has not been established. Therefore, we investigated the analgesic effect based on different epidural injection flow rates.
methodsNulliparous women scheduled for spontaneous labor were enrolled in this randomized trial. After injection of intrathecal 0.2% ropivacaine 3 mg with fentanyl 20 μg, participants were randomized to three study groups. Epidural analgesics, 10 ml during one hour, were administered with patient controlled epidural analgesia as follows (0.2% ropivacaine 60 ml, fentanyl 180 μg, and 0.9% saline 40 ml): continuous (n = 28, 10 ml/h for continuous infusion), PIEB (n = 29, 240 ml/h for bolus infusion of 10 ml), or manual (n = 28, 1200 ml/h for bolus injection of 10 ml). The primary outcome was hourly consumption of the epidural solution. The time interval between labor analgesia and the first breakthrough pain was investigated.
resultsThe median (Q1, Q3) hourly consumption of epidural anesthetics was significantly different among the groups (continuous: 14.3 [8.7, 16.9] ml, PIEB: 9.4 [6.2, 9.8] ml, manual: 8.6 [7.6, 9.9] ml; P < 0.001). The time to breakthrough pain for the PIEB group was longer than that for the other groups (continuous: 78.5 [35.8, 185.0] min, PIEB: 200.0 [88.5, 441.5] min, manual: 60.5 [37.3, 162.0] min, P = 0.027).
conclusionsPIEB, with a low-flow rate, provided more adequate labor analgesia than a continuous epidural infusion or manual injection with a high-flow rate.
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.