ArticleBMJ open2026
Epidural analgesia during labour in uncomplicated pregnancy low-risk women: intrapartum care and maternal-neonatal outcomes-a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectivesTo investigate the associations between the use of epidural analgesia (EA) and intrapartum care, labour, birth and neonatal outcomes in uncomplicated pregnancy low-risk women, to inform evidence-based intrapartum practices and support informed maternal choice.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingSingle maternity hospital in Northern Italy.
participantsA total of 3406 uncomplicated pregnancy low-risk women who gave birth between 2019 and 2023 were included. Participants were grouped according to whether they received EA (n=417) or not (n=2989). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Labour progression, intrapartum care practices, maternal and neonatal outcomes were evaluated according to exposure to EA. Associations between EA and the study outcomes were assessed using descriptive and inferential statistics and multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses, adjusted for maternal age, parity and other outcome-specific confounders.
resultsWomen receiving EA experienced higher rates of prolonged first and second stage of labour (adjusted OR (aOR) 24.3 and 5.0, 95% CI 17.8 to 33.6 and 3.8 to 6.6, respectively), amniotomy and oxytocin use (aOR 7.7 and 17.8, 95% CI 5.7 to 10.6 and 12.9 to 24.6, respectively), caesarean section (aOR 7.2, 95% CI 3.1 to 17.1), lithotomy position at birth (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.0) and urinary retention (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 3.1 to 11.5). No differences were observed in neonatal outcomes.
conclusionIn uncomplicated pregnancy low-risk women, EA during active labour was associated with increased rates of clinical interventions and altered labour patterns, with no differences in neonatal outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of the midwife's role in promoting physiological labour while ensuring effective pain management.
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.