ReviewCureus2025
Standardizing Quality Metrics for Neuraxial Labor Analgesia: A Quality Improvement Framework for Obstetric Anesthesia.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Neuraxial labor analgesia, delivered through epidural or combined spinal-epidural techniques, remains the cornerstone of intrapartum pain management. However, variation in quality measurement continues to limit opportunities for benchmarking and systematic improvement. This study aimed to synthesize existing quality measures and propose a standardized obstetric anesthesia quality improvement framework with clear, measurable benchmarks. A targeted review was conducted using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify organizational guidelines, peer-reviewed literature, and gray literature sources relevant to neuraxial labor analgesia quality metrics, which were then refined through expert consensus. A multidisciplinary panel consisting of attending anesthesiologists, anesthesiology residents, certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and certified anesthesiologist assistants (CAAs) reviewed the synthesized evidence, and all benchmarks were finalized through structured discussion and consensus-based decision-making. The resulting framework outlines proposed operational benchmarks across five domains. Access and timeliness were defined as at least 90% of eligible patients receiving neuraxial analgesia within 30 minutes of request, with a median request-to-placement time of 30 minutes or less. Safety metrics included dural puncture rates below 1%, epidural replacement below 5%, maternal hypotension requiring vasopressors below 10%, and elimination of high neuraxial block or epidural-related infection/hematoma as sentinel events. Effectiveness measures targeted adequate pain relief within 20 minutes in at least 95% of cases and conversion to general anesthesia for cesarean delivery below 1%. Documentation and compliance required complete procedural records, checklist use, and pre- and post-procedure pain scores in at least 95% of cases. Patient experience benchmarks included at least 90% satisfaction with pain management and 95% willingness to choose neuraxial analgesia again. Benchmark thresholds were informed by published evidence, national and international recommendations, findings across included sources, and expert consensus. A consolidated, procedure-specific dashboard can align practice expectations, enable transparent benchmarking, and drive continuous improvement. Adoption of this framework can standardize measurement and promote high-quality, patient-centered obstetric anesthesia care.
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.