Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Changes in the choice of anaesthetic techniques for caesarean sections among Turkish citizens and migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time series analysis.
Observational study 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.
- Mode of delivery and anesthesia in adolescents: a comparative analysis of Turkish and refugee populations.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Surgical Outcomes and Tumor Characteristics in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.Journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in the choice of anaesthetic techniques for singleton caesarean sections among Turkish citizens and migrants before, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and after vaccination.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. It included data from 9,744 consecutive women-7,083 (72.7%) Turkish citizens and 2,661 (27.3%) migrants-who underwent singleton caesarean sections between March 2018 and March 2023. The primary outcome was the change in monthly utilization rates of neuraxial anaesthesia (NA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives included caesarean section urgency and neonatal outcomes.
resultsDuring the study period, there was an increasing trend in the number of caesarean sections performed using NA among Turkish citizens and migrants (relative ratio [RR] 1.003, P < 0.001 and RR 1.005, P < 0.01, respectively). Both groups showed a significant immediate increase in the usage rate of NA at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (RR 1.095, P < 0.001 and 1.134, P < 0.001, respectively). The introduction of vaccination had no effect on the use of NA (RR 0.970, P = 1.004, and RR 1.000, P = 0.99, respectively). The significant between-group difference in the pre-pandemic usage rate of NA diminished following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no significant between-group difference observed after vaccination (93.3% vs. 90.9%., P = 0.006, 98.4% vs. 97.1%, P = 0.0; 95.4% vs. 95.2%, P = 0.801, respectively). Category-1 caesarean section events increased throughout the study period (471(10.7%) before COVID-19, 321(17.0%) during the first year, and 700 (20.2%) after vaccination; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of composite adverse neonatal outcomes (stillbirths, Apgar 5-min score < 7) among the three time periods (89(2.0%), 41(2.2%), and 49(1.4%); P = 0.065).
conclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, our study revealed a continuation of the upward trend in the use of NA for caesarean sections.
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.