ArticleJournal of anesthesia2024
Comparison of patient-controlled epidural analgesia and epidural morphine for post-cesarean section analgesia: experience from a tertiary center in China.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of dezocine and hydromorphone in post-cesarean epidural analgesia: a retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models for predicting post-cesarean pain and individualized pain management strategies: a multicenter study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- [Epidural Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Evidence and Practice].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and epidural morphine (EM) for post-cesarean section analgesia in real-world experience from China.
methodsParturients receiving one dose of EM (1-2 mg), PCEA, or both EM and PCEA from Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively recruited. Logistic models were used to identify risk factors.
resultsOf 1079 parturients enrolled, 919 (85.2%) parturients received only EM, 105 (9.7%) parturients received PCEA, and 55 (5.1%) parturients received both EM and PCEA. Significantly more parturients from EM group requested supplementary analgesia than those from PCEA and PCEA + EM group (583, 63.4% vs 52, 49.5% vs 25, 45.5%, P = 0.001) with more times of supplementary analgesia (1, IQR: 0-2 vs 0, IQR: 0-1 vs 0, IQR: 0-1 times, P < 0.001) and larger amounts of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (50, IQR: 0-100 mg vs 0, IQR: 0-50 mg vs 0, IQR: 0-50 mg, P < 0.001). In multivariable Logistic regression for the supplementary analgesia risk, the application of PCEA (OR: 0.557, 95%CI 0.396-0.783, P = 0.001) and the use of NSAIDs intraoperatively (OR: 2.996, 95%CI 1.811-4.957, P < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors. A total of 1040 (96.4%) patients received prophylactic antiemetic therapy during surgery. Only 13 (1.2%) and 7 (0.6%) patients in our cohort requested antiemetic and antipruritic drugs, respectively.
conclusionThe use of PCEA was an independent protective factor for supplementary analgesia during the post-cesarean section. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy may reduce the side effects of post-cesarean analgesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38980398What 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.