ArticleBMC anesthesiology2024
Knowledge, fear and acceptance rate of spinal anesthesia among pregnant women scheduled for cesarean section: a cross-sectional study from a tertiary care hospital in Karachi.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06910826 (Explaining Spinal Anesthesia to Pregnant Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Explaining Spinal Anesthesia to Pregnant Women: A Visual Approach to Overcoming Fears
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-dose spinal anesthesia in cesarean section: a narrative review.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Review
- Breaking myths and building awareness: spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in Palestine-what women know and what holds them backs- a cross- sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Fentanyl and Morphine on Maternal Hemodynamics in Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Psychological predictors of cesarean delivery on maternal request in upper middle-income settings and the mitigating role of prenatal psychological education: a multicenter longitudinal study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, the cesarean section (c-section) rate is rising. Globally, regional anesthesia in the form of spinal anesthesia (SA) is considered the first choice in uncomplicated c-section cases for safe maternal and neonatal outcomes. This study aimed to ascertain knowledge, acceptance, and fears of SA among patients scheduled for c-section in a tertiary care hospital.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was performed in the Anesthesia Department, Hamdard University Hospital, Karachi, from April to September 2023. Knowledge was assessed using a self-designed questionnaire with a total of 7 questions. Data was entered in SPSS version 26 to perform statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 303 females were enrolled, with a mean age of 26.5 ± 4.5 years and a median gestational age of 37 (IQR = 36-37) weeks. 93.7% of women agreed to receive SA. 63% heard the term regional anesthesia before, 12.2% heard about general anesthesia, and 17.5% heard about SA. 23.4% of participants scored 7 out of 7, 39.9% had a score of 6 out of 7, and 36.6% had a score of ≤ 5. Among 129 (42.6%) females having fear, the commonest fear was limiting lower limb functions post-surgery (93.8%), followed by post-operative vaginal pain (91.5%), intra-operative pain (80.6%), post-operative backache (76.7%), having visuals of surgery (72.9%), back injury (56.6%), headache (46.5%), nausea/vomiting (31%), and being nude (24%).
conclusionThe present study analyzed that although the majority of female agreed to receive spinal anesthesia, they had a fear of it. Knowledge of spinal anesthesia was not remarkable among the study population. Proper education regarding anesthesia should be given to patients to overcome fears related to spinal anesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.