ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of 0.0625% Bupivacaine-Fentanyl With 0.1% Ropivacaine-Fentanyl for Labor Epidural Analgesia.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLabor pain triggers significant maternal stress, impacting both maternal and fetal well-being. Epidural analgesia is the gold standard for labor pain relief, offering effective analgesia with minimal side effects. This study compares the efficacy and safety of 0.0625% bupivacaine-fentanyl (BF) versus 0.1% ropivacaine-fentanyl (RF) in labor epidural analgesia. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn observational study was conducted on 60 primiparous women in active labor, divided into two groups (n=30 each). Group BF received 0.0625% BF (2 mcg/ml), and Group RF received 0.1% RF (2 mcg/ml) via epidural infusion. Pain relief (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score), motor block (modified Bromage score), need for top-ups, maternal satisfaction, mode of delivery, neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores), and adverse events were recorded. Data were analyzed using Epi Info (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia), with p<0.05 considered significant.
resultsBoth groups were demographically comparable. Group RF demonstrated superior analgesia with significantly lower VAS scores at 20 and 30 minutes (p=0.007 and p<0.001). Group BF required more top-ups and rescue analgesia. Motor blockade was significantly higher in Group BF (p=0.0074). Maternal satisfaction was better in Group RF (p=0.0005). Apgar scores and labor duration were comparable. No significant hemodynamic instability or adverse events were noted.
conclusionA combination of 0.1% RF provides superior analgesia with less motor block and higher maternal satisfaction compared to 0.0625% BF in labor epidural analgesia, without compromising neonatal outcomes.
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.