ArticleCureus2024
A Randomised Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine-Ropivacaine Versus Fentanyl-Ropivacaine for Epidural Labour Analgesia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analgesic efficacy, adverse events, and prognostic factors of low-dose intranasal dexmedetomidine combined with epidural anesthesia in ovarian cyst resection.American journal of translational research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background An epidural block is a superior potent approach to labour analgesia, and ropivacaine combined with fentanyl has been successfully practised for it. Dexmedetomidine, as a novel form of labour analgesia, must be researched further. Our study results give insight into the epidural block and come up with a pioneering approach for labour analgesia. Methodology A total of 68 parturients were assigned to two equal groups and received either dexmedetomidine with ropivacaine (Group RD) or fentanyl with ropivacaine (Group RF). Parturients received a loading dose and maintenance was given using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump. Analgesia onset time, labour duration, rescue dose requirement, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores were noted. Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity and Respiration (APGAR) scores of newborns, Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) scores of mothers, and maternal side effects were observed. Results Group RD showed a shorter onset time of analgesia (group RD: 12.50 ± 1.31 minutes vs. group RF: 15.26 ± 1.46 min), less local anaesthetics requirement (group RD: 47.54 ±5.37 ml vs. group RF: 59.05 ± 6.62 ml), less number of bolus doses (group RD: 0.15 ± 0.36 vs. group RF: 1.21 ± 0.95), and shorter duration from the epidural administration to the delivery (group RD: 312.97 ± 42.40 minutes vs. group RF: 345.94 ±14.67 minutes) than group RF. VAS values of the RD group were significantly less than the RF group. The RSS scores were comparably low in both groups, and excessive sedation was not seen in any group. Newborn APGAR values were comparably on the higher side in the two groups. Adverse effects were observed in the two groups, like hypotension, nausea/vomiting, bradycardia, shivering, and pruritus, which were insignificant. Conclusion The RD group showed an improved analgesic effect with a quicker onset of action, reduced requirement of local anaesthetics, and lower VAS scores compared to the RF group. With ropivacaine, dexmedetomidine shows more efficacy than fentanyl during epidural block and is a safe alternative for labour pain management.
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.