MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321303362 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000743

The Effect of Adding a Background Infusion to Patient-Controlled Epidural Labor Analgesia on Labor, Maternal, and Neonatal Outcomes

2015· review· en· W2321303362 on OpenAlexaff
M. Heesen, Johannes Böhmer, S. Klöhr, Thomas Hofmann, Rolf Rossaint, Sebastian Straube

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaConfidence intervalRelative riskAnesthesiaAdverse effectApgar scoreVomitingVaginal deliveryLabor painRandomized controlled trialPregnancyUmbilical arteryObstetricsUterotonicGestational ageSurgeryGestationInternal medicineOxytocin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has gained popularity, but it is still unclear whether adding a background infusion confers any benefit. METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISI WOS was performed to identify randomized controlled double-blind trials that compare PCEA-only with PCEA combined with a continuous infusion (PCEA + CI) in parturients. The data were subjected to meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was the incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were incidences of spontaneous vaginal and cesarean deliveries, duration of labor, analgesic outcomes, maternal outcomes (visual analog scale scores for pain, maternal satisfaction, nausea, pruritus, hypotension), and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, umbilical artery pH). RESULTS: We identified 7 trials with a low risk of bias, reporting on 891 parturients, for inclusion in our systematic review. The risk of instrumental vaginal delivery was increased in the PCEA + CI group, risk ratio (RR) 1.66 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.56, P = 0.02; I = 0%); the RR for cesarean delivery was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.13, I = 0%). The second stage of labor was prolonged (weighted mean difference 12.3 minutes, 95% confidence interval 5.1-19.5 minutes, P = 0.0008; I = 0%) in the PCEA + CI group. Fewer patients in the PCEA + CI group required physician-administered boluses (RR 0.35 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.47, P < 0.00001; I = 0%]). No differences regarding maternal adverse events (nausea, pruritus, hypotension) or neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores <7, umbilical artery pH) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the risks or benefits of adding a continuous background infusion to PCEA compared with PCEA-only epidural labor analgesia. Further high-quality studies involving a sufficient number of patients are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.015
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207