ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Salivary Substance P Levels During Cesarean Section Under Spinal versus General Anesthesia: A Prospective Study.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Substance P is a key neuropeptide involved in the transmission of nociceptive (pain) signals. The choice of anesthesia for childbirth, particularly for cesarean section (CS), is a critical decision that directly impacts the mother's physiological response to the procedure. This study aims to compare the levels of salivary SP in pregnant women undergoing CS under spinal versus general anesthesia. Methods: Eighty-three patients participated in this prospective comparative study. They were categorized into two groups: general and spinal anesthesia groups. The primary outcome was to measure the mean difference in salivary substance P level at three different time points of CS, and to compare these values between both groups. The secondary outcome was to assess the factors affecting the substance P levels in the mothers. Results: The study included 44 (53%) who received spinal anesthesia and 39 (47%) who received general anesthesia. Median substance P levels were significantly higher in the spinal anesthesia group (761 pg/mL [IQR 532-1335]) compared with the general anesthesia group (409 pg/mL [IQR 118-1094]; U = 1188.0, p = 0.0026). On multiple regression analysis, type of anesthesia was the independent variable influenced the levels of salivary substance P. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that participants receiving spinal anesthesia have significantly higher salivary substance P levels compared to those undergoing general anesthesia for CS. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying this observation and to determine its clinical implications for maternal and neonatal outcomes.
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.