ArticleCureus2025
Efficacy and Safety of Intrathecal Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant to Hyperbaric Bupivacaine Versus Isobaric Levobupivacaine in Caesarean Deliveries: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hyperbaric bupivacaine (HB), commonly used in caesarean sections (CS), may cause cardiotoxicity and high sympathetic blocks. Isobaric levobupivacaine (IL) provides effective sensory block with fewer hemodynamic changes and less toxicity. Adding magnesium sulphate (MS) enhances spinal anaesthesia. This study compared the efficacy and safety of intrathecal 0.5% IL-MS combination with 0.5% HB-MS combination in patients undergoing CS. Methods This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study involved 74 parturients undergoing CS. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: IL-MS group (n=37, 0.5% IL and 75mg MS) and HB-MS group (n=37, 0.5% HB and 75mg MS). The time to the first request for analgesia was the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures were time to achieve sensory and motor block, time to sensory and motor recovery, and adverse events. Results The IL-MS group had a significantly longer time to first rescue analgesia (487 min) compared to the HB-MS group (409 min, p < 0.05). Early sensory block (4 min vs. 5 min, p < 0.01) and motor block onset (5 min vs. 6 min, p < 0.01) were achieved in the IL-MS group compared to HB-MS. Earlier sensory (278 min vs 306 min, p < 0.01) and motor recovery (243 min vs. 268 min, p < 0.01) in the IL-MS group than the HB-MS group were achieved. Adverse events were fewer in the IL-MS group, including no bradycardia cases compared to the HB-MS group. Conclusion Intrathecal IL-MS is a useful alternative to HB-MS for patients undergoing CS with longer duration of analgesia and better hemodynamic stability.
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.