Intravenous ketamine during spinal and general anaesthesia for caesarean section: systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intravenous ketamine has been used during general and regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. No systematic review and meta-analysis on the desired effects and adverse effects of ketamine administration during caesarean section have yet been performed. METHODS: After a systematic literature search a meta-analysis was conducted with the random effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: Twelve randomised controlled double-blind trials comprising 953 patients were included: seven studies reported on spinal anaesthesia and five on general anaesthesia. Significant differences in the aforementioned outcome variables were found only in the spinal anaesthesia studies. In the spinal anaesthesia studies the time to the first analgesic request was significantly longer in ketamine-treated women, the WMD was 49.36 min (95% CI 43.31-55.41); visual analogue scale pain scores at rest 2 h after surgery were significantly lower. No differences were observed for maternal nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and psychomimetic effects. Only few data were found for neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ketamine enhances post-operative analgesia after caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. There is a paucity of data for several maternal adverse effects as well as for neonatal well-being. Further studies are needed for general anaesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".