The Effect of Adding a Background Infusion to Patient-Controlled Epidural Labor Analgesia on Labor, Maternal, and Neonatal Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".