Trial reportScientific reports2023
Handheld ultrasound-assisted versus palpation-guided combined spinal-epidural for labor analgesia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Handheld Ultrasound-assisted Versus Palpation-guided Labor Combined Spinal-epidural Analgesia: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Early Preprocedural Ultrasound Versus Landmark Palpation for Site Identification in Labour Epidural Analgesia: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of continuous epidural analgesia, traditional combined spinal-epidural, and modified combined spinal-epidural for labor analgesia: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The Transverse Process as a Landmark for Estimating Dural Sac Depth and Feasible Planes for Optimized Paramedian Needle Insertions.NeuroSci · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preprocedural ultrasound assistance can enhance the efficacy of neuraxial anesthesia in obstetrics. We investigated whether the use of handheld ultrasound can shorten the procedural time of labor combined spinal-epidural (CSE) analgesia compared with conventional landmark-guided methods. Eighty-four women requesting labor analgesia were randomly assigned to either handheld ultrasound-assisted or palpation-guided CSE analgesia. Primary outcome was procedure time of the CSE analgesia. Secondary outcomes included identification time, performance time, number of needle manipulations required for epidural/spinal success, first-attempt success rate, periprocedural pain scores, the incidence of accidental dural puncture, and patient satisfaction. Total procedure time did not significantly differ between the ultrasound and palpation groups (median [IQR], 191.5 [167-224] vs. 204.5 [163-358] s; P = 0.442). However, the performance time was significantly shorter in the ultrasound group (134.5 [115-177] vs. 183 [129-296] s; P = 0.011), although identification time was longer in the ultrasound group (53 [41-72] vs. 30.5 [21-45] s; P < 0.001). The epidural success rate at first insertion attempt was higher in the ultrasound group (85.7% vs. 59.5%, P = 0.014). Preprocedural handheld ultrasound assistance resulted in equivalent total procedure times but reduced performance times and higher first-attempt success rates. Therefore, clinicians may consider this technique for labor CSE analgesia.Trial registration: NCT04759547.
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.