ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2025
Enhanced recovery after caesarean section: an intrathecal morphine dosing study.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 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
objectiveTo compare the analgesic and side effect profiles of three intrathecal morphine doses as part of an enhanced recovery protocol in obstetric patients undergoing caesarean section.
methodsA prospective cohort study including ASA 2 females, over 18 years old having repeat elective caesarean sections. Primary outcomes include total oral morphine equivalents (mg) at 24 and 48 h, proportion of opioid free patients (24 and 48 h), and frequency of ITM-related side-effects. Secondary outcome measures include duration of analgesia, pain scores at 24 h, FAS at 24 h and length of stay.
resultsFive hundred seventy-four patients were divided into 150 mcg (190 patients), 125 mcg (191 patients) and 100 mcg (193 patients) intrathecal morphine groups. Effective analgesia was provided by all doses of ITM with a dose-dependent increase in side-effects. The median opioid consumption at 24 h was 10 mg in the 150 mcg group and 20 mg in the 125 mcg and 100 mcg groups. At 48 h, the median opioid consumption was 30 mg in the 150 mcg group and 45 mg in the 125 mcg and 100 mcg groups. The proportion of opioid-free patients at 24 and 48 h decreased with decreasing dose of ITM; 41% in 150 mcg group, 31% in the 125 mcg group and 28% in the 100 mcg group at 24 h. At 48 h, this reduces to 24% in the 150 mcg group, 15% (37.5% reduction in the 125 mcg group, and 13% (45.8% reduction) in the 100 mcg group. This designates analgesic inferiority of both 125 mcg and 100 mcg ITM doses compared to 150 mcg dosing. There was no significant difference between 125 and 100 mcg dosing. The duration of analgesia was greater in 150 mcg dosing (median duration 21 h) compared to 125 mcg (13 h) and 100 mcg (12 h) groups. No significant difference in pain scores was noted between doses. FAS scores demonstrated a trend towards functional limitation in 125 mcg and 100 mcg dosing compared to 150 mcg. There was no difference between the 125 mcg and 100 mcg groups. Increased pruritus was seen in the 150 mcg and 125 mcg groups (41%) compared to the 100 mcg group (32%). Increased nausea and vomiting was seen in the 150 mcg (49%) and 125 mcg (42%) groups compared to the 100 mcg group (24%). No difference in LOS was noted between doses (median difference 1.1 h).
conclusionAll doses of ITM provide effective analgesia with 100 mcg dosing providing the best trade-off between analgesic efficacy and side effect profile.
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.