ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
The influence of epidural analgesic techniques on obstetrical outcomes.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare and evaluate the obstetrical differences between three techniques, including the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB), the patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), and the continuous epidural analgesia (CEA).
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study that investigates the obstetrical outcomes of 2240 patients who received EA during labor in a tertiary maternal unit over the course of 9 years (2011-2018). The only inclusion criterion was the use of epidural analgesia during childbirth and the only exclusion criteria were multiplets' gestation. Multivariate logistic regression, Kruskal-Wallis test, and the log-rank test were utilized to compare the differences between the three EA techniques in terms of cesarean section rate, the incidence of perineal tears, the use of Oxytocin, the duration of labor, and the incidence of paresthesia.
resultsOut of the 2240 included deliveries; 1084 utilized PIEB, 1086 PCEA, and 70 CEA techniques. The incidence of Cesarean section was the highest in the CEA group (45.7%) compared to PIEB (24.8%) and PCEA (24.4%) P < 0.001. A significantly shorter duration of labor (vaginal delivery) was observed in the PCEA group (n: 821, 336.7 min) compared to the PIEB group (n: 814, 368.8 min) P < 0.001. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of perineal tears, the need of uterotonics, and the incidence of paresthesia.
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that the PIEB and PCEA techniques are superior to the CEA technique when it comes to analgesia during childbirth. In this study, the PCEA technique seems to be the best-suited technique for childbirth, since it had a significantly shorter duration of labor than the PIEB technique.
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.