ArticleJournal of anesthesia2026
Nationwide characterization of labor neuraxial analgesia provision in Japan using a publicly accessible database.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2026. 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.
- In reply.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, labor neuraxial analgesia (LNA) is frequently administered by obstetricians rather than board-certified anesthesiologists, particularly in smaller facilities. Although awareness of maternal safety has increased in recent years, the extent of anesthesiologist involvement in obstetric anesthesia remains unclear.
methodsThis nationwide cross-sectional study analyzed data from Birth-Navi, a public registry of childbirth facilities maintained by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. As of August 2024, facilities offering LNA were categorized into two groups: those listing a board-certified anesthesiologist (Group A) and an obstetrician-gynecologist (Group O) as a responsible physician. Institutional characteristics and analgesia practices were compared between groups using chi-square tests.
resultsAmong 2063 registered facilities, 837 (40.6%) provided LNA, of which 771 met the inclusion criteria. Only 27.2% facilities listed a board-certified anesthesiologist as the responsible physician. Group A facilities were more likely to be hospitals (86.8% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001) and more likely to utilize combined spinal-epidural techniques (23.7% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.002). However, 24 h analgesia availability was significantly lower in Group A than in Group O (25.9% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.05). Notably, only 284 facilities (13.8%) provided round-the-clock analgesia upon maternal request.
conclusionIt is important to note that anesthesiologist-led LNA remains limited in Japan. While associated with more advanced techniques, 24 h availability is uncommon. To improve both access and safety, system-level strategies-such as redistribution of personnel and the implementation of collaborative tele-anesthesia networks-should be considered.
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.