ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
A Comparison of Norepinephrine versus Phenylephrine to Prevent Hypotension after Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Norepinephrine or Phenylephrine to Prevent Spinal Anesthesia-Induced Hypotension During Cesarean Section: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study of Fetal Cerebral Perfusion.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Review
- Article
- Review
- Comparison of Two Different Norepinephrine Bolus Doses for Management of Spinal Anesthesia-Induced Maternal Hypotension in Cesarean Section: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of phenylephrine, ephedrine, and norepinephrine for the prevention and treatment of spinal-induced hypotension in pre-eclamptic patients undergoing caesarean section: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of using phenylephrine or norepinephrine on the pH and base excess (BE) of the umbilical artery and vein in parturients undergoing cesarean section.
methodsThe study protocol was registered in INPLASY. Independent researchers searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and Google Scholar for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome of this study was the umbilical artery (UA) or umbilical vein (UV) pH as neonatal condition at birth, and the secondary outcome was the UA or UV BE as an additional prognostic value over the measurement of umbilical pH.
resultsThere was no evidence of a difference between phenylephrine and norepinephrine for overall, UA, and UV pH (mean difference (MD) -0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.004 to 0.007; MD 0.000, 95%CI -0.004 to 0.004; and MD 0.002, 95%CI -0.013 to 0.017). There was also no evidence of a difference between phenylephrine and norepinephrine for overall, UA, and UV BE (MD 0.096, 95% CI -0.258 to 0.451; MD 0.076, 95%CI -0.141 to 0.294; and MD 0.121, 95%CI; -0.569 to 0.811). A meta-regression showed that factors such as umbilical artery or vein, infusion method, single or twin, and the number of parturients per study had no effect on the UA pH, UV pH, UA BE, or UV BE. No evidence of publication bias was detected.
conclusionsThere was no evidence of a difference between phenylephrine and norepinephrine for umbilical pH and BE. A subgroup analysis and meta-regression also did not show evidence of differences.
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.