ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Association of epidural labor analgesia with maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with preeclampsia: a propensity score-matched single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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.
- Association of labor epidural analgesia with early postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women undergoing vaginal delivery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Successful internal fixation of a pelvic ring fracture during pregnancy: a multidisciplinary case report.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
backgroundEpidural labor analgesia (ELA) is widely and safely used for labor pain relief. However, it remains unclear whether ELA affects maternal and neonatal outcomes in women suffering from preeclampsia.
methodsThis study reviewed the medical records of women with preeclampsia at ≥ 28 weeks of gestation between January 2015 and December 2020. The medical records of women were divided into ELA and no analgesia (NA) groups. The primary endpoint was the cesarean section (CS) rate. Secondary endpoints included hypotension, operative vaginal delivery, fetal distress, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and complications. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching (PSM), the association between ELA and maternal and neonatal outcomes was examined.
resultsA total of medical records of 686 women were enrolled, with 242 (35.3%) receiving ELA. Of these, 126 (18.4%) had a higher incidence of CS in the ELA group than in the NA group (22.7% vs. 16.0%, P = 0.020). Multivariable analysis indicated greater risks of CS [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.07-2.74; P = 0.025] and operative vaginal delivery (aOR = 2.810; 95% CI, 1.379-5.725; P = 0.004) in the ELA group than that of NA group. In the PSM, ELA did not increase the risk of CS (aOR = 1.56; 95% CI, 0.97-2.52; P = 0.067) and OVD (aOR = 2.048; 95% CI, 0.936-4.484; P = 0.073). The secondary endpoints showed no significant differences between the two groups.
conclusionThe study indicates an association between ELA and maternal and neonatal outcomes, supporting the safety of ELA in this population.
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.