ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Epidural analgesia and rate of cesarean section, maternal and neonatal outcomes: Retrospective study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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.
- Article
- The effect of labor epidural analgesia on uterine activity using electrohysterography monitoring: A follow-up study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The neuraxial technique is standard medical care for labor pain relief. Epidural analgesia is linked to an increased likelihood of assisted vaginal birth but does not raise the overall cesarean section (CS) delivery risk. Few studies in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia have examined epidural analgesia's effect on emergency cesarean section rates among vaginal deliveries. This retrospective study at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia included 387 term pregnant women. Patients were divided into two groups: 240 received epidural analgesia, and 147 served as controls. Inclusion criteria included women aged 18-40 with specific fetal characteristics. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed using Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon tests. Women who received epidural analgesia were younger, with lower gravidity and parity, and had a higher rate of emergency cesarean sections. No significant differences were found in instrumental delivery rates, severe tears, or postpartum hemorrhage between groups. Neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores, birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, were similar. Logistic regression indicated a higher likelihood of emergency CS with epidural analgesia, but this was insignificant in multivariable analysis. Gravidity and parity were inversely associated with emergency CS and instrumental deliveries. While epidural analgesia was linked to higher C-sections, further analysis showed no significant effect. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between groups. These findings support the safe use of epidural analgesia for labor pain management in Saudi Arabia, offering reassurance to both patients and healthcare providers.
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.