ArticleCureus2025
Comparing the Effects of Sitting Duration and Lateral Positioning on Hemodynamics and Neonatal Outcomes During Spinal Anaesthesia for Elective Caesarean Section.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal anaesthesia is widely used for caesarean sections. However, patient positioning during its administration can influence hemodynamic outcomes. This study compares the effects of different sitting durations and lateral positioning on hemodynamics and neonatal outcomes following spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section.
methodsA total of 135 pregnant women scheduled for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomly divided into three groups of 45 each: Group S1 - Sitting for one minute, Group S2 - Sitting for two minutes, and Group L - Lateral position. Haemodynamic variables (heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and oxygen saturation (SpO
resultsAfter 10 minutes of spinal anaesthesia, MAP decreased significantly in Groups S1 and S2 compared to Group L (p < 0.05). Patients in Group L maintained better haemodynamic stability throughout the surgery. Sensory and motor block levels were comparable among all groups. The mean time to achieve the highest sensory block level was 4.20 ± 1.31 minutes in Group L, 6.73 ± 1.03 minutes in Group S1, and 6.82 ± 1.05 minutes in Group S2 (p < 0.05). Vasopressor requirement was significantly lower in Group L (6.43 ± 1.60 mg) compared to Groups S1 and S2 (14.25 ± 5.71 mg and 13.03 ± 5.57 mg, respectively) (p < 0.05). APGAR scores at one minute and five minutes were higher in Group L compared to Groups S1 and S2 (p < 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were also significantly higher in Group L, with fewer complications compared to Groups S1 and S2.
conclusionThe lateral position provided superior haemodynamic stability, higher patient satisfaction, and better neonatal outcomes compared to sitting positions during spinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section.
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.