ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Obstetric anaesthesia for caesarean section in Central Europe: a prospective population-weighted binational audit (OBAAMA-COV Study).
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04912791 (A National Survey on Obstetric Anesthesia and Analgesia Care), which is not on this 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.
A National Survey on Obstetric Anesthesia and Analgesia Care: Obstetric Anaesthesia And Analgesia Month Attributes - in COVID-19 (OBAAMA-COV)
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuraxial anaesthesia is recommended as the preferred technique for caesarean section, and the proportion performed under general anaesthesia is increasingly regarded as a quality indicator. Previous national audits in the Czech Republic and Slovakia demonstrated a reduction in general anaesthesia rates between 2011 and 2015; however, contemporary population-level data are lacking.
methodsOBAAMA-COV was a prospective, cross-sectional national audit conducted in November 2022 across maternity units in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Consecutive caesarean sections were recorded using a structured electronic registry. Population weighting based on official national statistics was applied to generate representative estimates of anaesthetic technique distributions and reported indications. The analyses were descriptive.
resultsA total of 2,270 caesarean sections were recorded from 94 centres. Population-weighted estimates corresponded to 2,068 procedures in the Czech Republic and 1,205 in Slovakia. Overall general anaesthesia rates were 33.9% and 31.3%, respectively. In elective procedures, general anaesthesia was used in 23.0% (95% CI 19.9-26.4) in the Czech Republic and 24.9% (20.6-29.7) in Slovakia; in emergency procedures, rates were 45.4% (42.1-48.8) and 36.8% (31.8-42.1), respectively. Maternal preference was the leading reported indication in elective cases (approximately 60-63% across audit cycles), whereas urgency predominated in emergency settings. Rapid sequence induction with tracheal intubation was used in most cases; difficult intubation occurred in approximately 2% of cases, and no aspiration was recorded. Umbilical arterial pH values were comparable between general anaesthesia and neuraxial techniques.
conclusionsThese population-weighted data demonstrate a persistent divergence from contemporary European standards. General anaesthesia for caesarean section remains common in both countries, plateauing rather than declining since 2015. The continued reliance on general anaesthesia-driven by maternal preference in elective procedures and by urgency in acute settings-suggests an important contribution of organisational and sociocultural factors beyond strictly clinical indications.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04912791), registered June 2, 2021.
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.