Single-dose intrathecal analgesia to control labour pain: is it a useful alternative to epidural analgesia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of single-dose spinal analgesia (intrathecal narcotics [ITN]) during labour. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched and the references of 2 systematic reviews and a meta-analysis were reviewed to find articles on obstetric analgesia and pain measurement. The 33 articles selected included 14 studies, 1 meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews, all providing level I evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: The literature supports use of ITN as a safe and effective alternative to epidural anesthesia. The recent decrease in rates of episiotomies and use of forceps during deliveries means patients require less dense perineal anesthesia. The advantage of single-dose ITN is that fewer physicians and nurses are needed to administer it even though its safety and effectiveness are comparable with other analgesics. Use of ITN is associated with a shorter first stage of labour and more rapid cervical dilation. A combination of 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, 25 microg of fentanyl, and 250 microg of morphine intrathecally usually provides a 4-hour window of acceptable analgesia for patients without complications not anticipating protracted labour. The evolution in dosing of ITN warrants a re-examination of its usefulness in modern obstetric practice. CONCLUSION: Physicians practising modern obstetrics in rural and small urban centres might find single-dose ITN a useful alternative to parenteral or epidural analgesia for appropriately selected patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".