ArticleAJOG global reports2024
Neighborhood disadvantage and general anesthesia utilization in cesarean delivery: a retrospective analysis.
Article in AJOG global reports, 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.
- A scoping review of barriers experienced by underserved and rural maternal populations in accessing epidural analgesia in the United States.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Association of patient and clinical characteristics with cesarean delivery operating times at a Texas level IV maternal center: a single-center retrospective study.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Neighborhood disadvantage, a social driver of health (SDOH), has been associated with adverse perinatal outcomes; yet little is known about its association with anesthetic choice. Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess the association of neighborhood disadvantage and anesthetic choice for cesarean deliveries. We hypothesize that people from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries compared to those from the most advantaged neighborhoods. Study design: This single-center retrospective cohort study identified index cesarean deliveries performed between 2008 and 2017. People were categorized into no, low, moderate, and high disadvantage neighborhood using the area deprivation index. The odds of receiving general anesthesia versus neuraxial anesthesia (epidural, spinal, or combined spinal-epidural) were compared using logistic regression models. Results: Of the 16,351 people with cesarean deliveries, 96.0% received neuraxial versus 4.0% general anesthesia. The rates of general anesthesia were 6.3%, 4.2%, 3.1%, and 2.4% for the high, moderate, low, and no disadvantage groups ( Conclusions: People from disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean deliveries, even after considering clinical features. The general anesthesia rate is a meaningful benchmark in obstetric anesthesia that may contribute to disparities.
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.