ArticleCureus2023
The Prevalence of Acceptance Between General Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia Among Pregnant Women Undergoing Elective Caesarean Sections in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obstetric anaesthesia for caesarean section in Central Europe: a prospective population-weighted binational audit (OBAAMA-COV Study).Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Breaking myths and building awareness: spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in Palestine-what women know and what holds them backs- a cross- sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: Does Ropivacaine Offer Hemodynamic Advantages Over Bupivacaine?Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Knowledge, fear and acceptance rate of spinal anesthesia among pregnant women scheduled for cesarean section: a cross-sectional study from a tertiary care hospital in Karachi.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The choice of anesthesia for an elective cesarean section should be based on an individual benefit-risk assessment, considering the pregnant woman's preferences, concerns, and the available medical expertise. This study aimed to determine the preferences for general and spinal anesthesia among women undergoing elective cesarean sections and the factors affecting their choice. Methods The study design is a cross-sectional study, and it was conducted on pregnant women to measure the acceptance of general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in patients with elective cesarean sections in Saudi Arabia. Random pregnant women were invited to participate in this study across Saudi Arabia after fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A digital questionnaire was distributed across Saudi Arabia to be filled out by female residents. A Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA
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.