ArticleBMJ open2025
Charting the future of precision management for visceral traction response in caesarean delivery: a scoping review and evidence mapping protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe visceral traction response (VTR) occurring during caesarean sections with neuraxial anaesthesia represents a common and significant complication that can greatly affect perioperative results and maternal contentment. Traditional methods for managing VTR frequently face limitations due to differences among individuals, highlighting the necessity for tailored approaches that incorporate personalised risk evaluations, cutting-edge monitoring techniques and enhanced treatment options. Despite the substantial potential of this emerging idea to tackle such an important clinical issue, there is a notable absence of a comprehensive review of the current evidence available.
objectiveThis protocol for a scoping review outlines a methodical strategy to chart the existing research landscape related to precision management of VTR in the context of caesarean delivery performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. By developing a conceptual framework, assessing the combined benefits of cutting-edge technologies and summarising tailored intervention techniques, this review aims to pinpoint key attributes, critical areas and new research directions, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of clinical practices and the formulation of rigorous future studies.
methodsThis research will thoroughly follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The eligibility criteria will be outlined using the population, concept, context framework. A comprehensive search across various international and Chinese databases (such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang and VIP) will be performed for literature published until March 2025, with a final update conducted before submission. Two reviewers will independently assess the literature and extract data. The data will be synthesised in a narrative format, supplemented by tabular and graphical representations, including conceptual framework diagrams and technology application matrices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a secondary analysis of published literature, ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international conferences, establishing an evidence foundation for clinical pathways and guiding future research initiatives. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VS94Y).
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.