ArticleBMJ open2025
Risk factors for a full stomach assessed by gastric ultrasound in patients undergoing elective caesarean section: a prospective cohort study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the prevalence and risk factors for full stomachs as assessed by gastric ultrasound in patients scheduled for elective caesarean section (CS).
designCase-control study.
settingOne tertiary general hospital in Beijing.
participantsA total of 140 non-labouring singleton pregnant women scheduled for elective CS between March 2024 and November 2024 at Peking University International Hospital were enrolled in this study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥18 years of age, ≥37 weeks of gestational age, an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of II to III, and the ability to understand the rationale of the study assessments. The exclusion criteria included multiple pregnancy, obstetric urgency, an antenatal history of upper gastrointestinal surgery or upper gastrointestinal tract disease, the use of medications that may influence gastrointestinal motility and refusal to participate in the study.
interventionsBased on quantitative and qualitative ultrasound assessments of the gastric antrum, patients were divided into two groups: a full stomach group (defined by a Perlas A score of grade 2 or the presence of solid contents or a gastric volume (GV)/weight >1.5 mL/kg) and an empty stomach group (defined by a Perlas A score <grade 2 and a GV/weight ≤1.5 mL/kg). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence and risk factors for full stomachs in patients scheduled for elective CS.
resultsA total of 134 parturients were analysed. Overall, 48 parturients (35.8%) were identified as having a full stomach despite adherence to standard fasting rules for elective CS. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) during pregnancy (adjusted OR: 3.90; 95% CI 1.15 to 13.23; p=0.029) was identified as an independent risk factor for full stomachs in patients scheduled for elective CS.
conclusionsIn this study, we found that GERD during pregnancy is an independent risk factor for full stomachs as assessed by gastric ultrasound in patients scheduled for elective CS. Our results suggest that if a parturient has GERD during pregnancy, it would be desirable to perform gastric ultrasound to evaluate gastric emptying status prior to anaesthesia.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trials Registry at http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2400082033).
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.