ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparing spinal anaesthesia and epidural anaesthesia in cephalic external version: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Anesthetic approaches for malpresentation and multiple gestation.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
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
introductionBreech presentation, occurring in approximately 3-5% of term pregnancies, is associated with increased risks of complications during vaginal delivery, including challenges in delivering the aftercoming head, umbilical cord prolapse, birth trauma and neonatal asphyxia. External cephalic version (ECV) is a recommended procedure to reposition the fetus from a non-cephalic to a cephalic presentation, aiming to reduce the risks associated with breech presentation and increase the likelihood of a vaginal delivery. We aimed to determine the impact of neuraxial analgesia on the success rate and safety of ECV by conducting a systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search will be conducted in electronic databases such as Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), PubMed, Web of Science and Embase. Studies investigating the effects of neuraxial analgesia, including spinal and epidural analgesia, on ECV success rates and patient safety will be included. The primary outcome is the success rate of ECV, while secondary outcomes include adverse events, complications and maternal and fetal well-being. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this review will analyse existing literature without patient involvement. The findings, which aim to assess the effects of neuraxial analgesia in ECV procedures, are expected to inform clinical practice and improve patient care. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023047525.
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.