Trial reportKorean journal of anesthesiology2024
Comparison of analgesic effects between programmed intermittent epidural boluses and continuous epidural infusion after cesarean section: a randomized controlled study.
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, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion combined with patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Pooled it
- From labor to surgery: expanding the role of programmed intermittent epidural bolus beyond obstetric.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Review
- Programmed intermittent epidural bolus: a viable alternative to traditional methods?Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the analgesic effects of programmed intermittent epidural boluses (PIEB) and continuous epidural infusion (CEI) for postoperative analgesia after elective cesarean section (CS).
methodsSeventy-four women who underwent elective CS were randomized to receive either PIEB or CEI. The PIEB group received 4 ml-intermittent boluses of 0.11% ropivacaine every hour at a rate of 120 ml/h. The CEI group received a constant rate of 4 ml/h of 0.11% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the pain score at rest at 36 h after CS. Secondary outcomes included the pain scores during mobilization, time-weighted pain scores, the incidence of motor blockade, and complications-related epidural analgesia during 36 h after CS.
resultsThe pain score at rest at 36 h after CS was significantly lower in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (3.0 vs. 0.0; median difference: 2, 95% CI [1, 2], P < 0.001). The mean time-weighted pain scores at rest and during mobilizations were also significantly lower in the PIEB group than in the CEI group (pain at rest; mean difference [MD]: 37.5, 95% CI [24.6, 50.4], P < 0.001/pain during mobilization; MD: 56.6, 95% CI [39.8, 73.5], P < 0.001). The incidence of motor blockade was significantly reduced in the PIEB group compared with that in the CEI group (P < 0.001).
conclusionsPIEB provides superior analgesia with less motor blockade than CEI in postpartum women after CS, without any apparent adverse events.
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.