ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Comparative efficacy of hyperbaric bupivacaine
Article in World journal of methodology, 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.
- Comment on "Comparison of analgesic modalities after cesarean section: a network meta-analysis and systematic review".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery: Does Ropivacaine Offer Hemodynamic Advantages Over Bupivacaine?Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrathecal bupivacaine is the traditional anesthetic drug used in spinal anesthesia for caesarean sections (CSs), but ropivacaine has emerged as a potential alternative. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine
aimTo systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine and hyperbaric ropivacaine for spinal anesthesia in CSs.
methodsA thorough search of electronic databases was carried out to find pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine during CSs. PubMed, Cochrane database, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched, and papers from January 2000 to January 2024 were deemed eligible and filtered using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for methodological quality, and data were extracted for time to adequate anesthesia (sensory and motor blockade), duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic changes and side effect profile. The standardized mean difference with 95%CI was used for continuous data. Dichotomous variables were assessed using the Mantel-Haenszel test and the random effect model to compute the odds ratio.
resultsTotal 8 RCTs were selected from a pool of 119 search results for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis evaluated pooled effect sizes and assessed heterogeneity among the studies. The primary objective was to compare key outcomes to identify any significant variances in efficacy and safety profiles between two local anesthetics. The analysis revealed that the difference in the onset of sensory blockade between the two local anesthetics was statistically insignificant (
conclusionThis meta-analysis offers insights into the effectiveness and safety of hyperbaric bupivacaine
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.