Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Dural Puncture Epidural versus Standard Epidural: A Randomized Double-Blinded Comparison of Optimal Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Intervals for Labor Analgesia.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. 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.
- Statistical Concerns Regarding the Sample Size Justification in a Randomized Comparison of DPE and Standard Epidural PIEB Intervals for Labor Analgesia [Letter].Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combined use of the dural puncture epidural (DPE) and the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) techniques for labor analgesia provides a more rapid onset of analgesia and a drug-sparing effect. We hypothesized that by using a DPE technique for initiation of labor analgesia in the setting of PIEB, the time interval between PIEB boluses may be extended. This randomized double-blind trial compared the PIEB interval required for 90% effective analgesia (EI90) between DPE and standard epidural. Methods: Parturients requesting labour epidural analgesia were allocated randomly to receive either a DPE technique or a standard epidural technique. The PIEB regimen consisted of 10 mL boluses of 0.10% ropivacaine containing 0.5 μg/mL sufentanil. The primary outcome was the effective or ineffective analgesia for labor analgesia. The PIEB interval for the first participant in each group was set at 60 minutes; subsequent intervals were determined using a biased-coin up-and-down sequential allocation method. Effective analgesia was defined as the absence of breakthrough pain during first labor stage. The EI90 was determined through isotonic regression analysis. Results: The EI90 values calculated by isotonic regression analysis for the DPE and standard epidural groups were 41.7 (95% CI, 35.0 to 52.3) minutes and 37.2 (95% CI, 33.0 to 49.7) minutes, respectively. An overlap in the 95% CIs of the two groups indicates no statistically significant clinical difference between them. Conclusion: In summary, under the conditions of this study, the DPE technique did not exert a clinically meaningful effect on the optimal PIEB interval for labor analgesia.
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.