ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Postoperative Analgesic Practices and Pain Control Outcomes After Caesarean Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Survey of 215 Hospitals in Hubei Province, China.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the spectrum of analgesic regimens, their effectiveness, and related adverse events following cesarean sections (CS) in Hubei Province, China, to provide an evidence base for refining post-CS pain management. Methods: This facility-based cross-sectional study used aggregate institutional data submitted by department heads through the Hubei Anesthesia Quality Control and Service Cloud Platform. The analgesic practice (the utilization of intravenous analgesia and epidural analgesia and corresponding medication regimens), their effects (the incidence of inadequate analgesia), and safety profiles (the incidence of adverse reactions) of different pain management strategy following CS were collected for analyses. The primary outcome was the incidence of inadequate analgesia, which was defined as a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of ≥4 points within 48 hours. Unadjusted comparisons between groups were performed using chi-square tests and Spearman's rank correlation; multivariable logistic regression was additionally applied to adjust for institutional-level covariates. Results: 36,620 CS cases were included in our analysis. Intravenous analgesia was the most common strategy (21,142 cases, 57.7%), followed by epidural analgesia (8569 cases, 23.4%). Despite its widespread use, our unadjusted comparison indicated that intravenous analgesia had significantly higher rates of inadequate pain control (VAS ≥4) than epidural analgesia (3.94% vs. 2.21%, p<0.001). Measurable disparities in analgesic practices and pain control outcomes across hospitals of different tiers and cities with different levels of economic development in Hubei Province were also observed. Conclusion: In this large aggregate institutional dataset, intravenous analgesia was the predominant strategy. Unadjusted comparisons suggest a higher rate of inadequate analgesia in the intravenous group relative to the epidural group. Future studies with patient-level data and validated adverse event capture are needed to confirm these patterns. Better resource allocation and anesthesiologist training would be beneficial to promote equitable post-CS 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.