MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337981352 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001255

The Effect of Intrathecal Morphine Dose on Outcomes After Elective Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-Analysis

2016· review· en· W2337981352 on OpenAlexaff
Pervez Sultan, Stephen H. Halpern, E Pushpanathan, Selina Patel, Brendan Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNauseaVomitingMorphineAnesthesiaOdds ratioAnalgesicConfidence intervalMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The intrathecal morphine dose achieving optimal analgesia for cesarean delivery while minimizing side effects has not yet been deduced. In this meta-analysis, our objective was to determine whether low- or high-dose intrathecal morphine provides acceptable duration and intensity of analgesia with fewer side effects. METHODS: A literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials involving patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia comparing low-dose (LD; 50-100 μg) morphine with higher dose (HD; >100-250 μg). The primary outcome was the time for first request for supplemental analgesia. The secondary outcomes included pain scores, morphine use, maternal side effects (vomiting and pruritus), and Apgar scores. Mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random effects modeling with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Eleven articles met our inclusion criteria. Four hundred eighty patients were recruited in all study groups (233 patients in the HD and 247 in the LD groups). The mean time to first analgesic request was longer (MD, 4.49 hours [95% CI, 1.85-7.13]; P = 0.0008) in the HD group compared with the LD group. Pain scores (0-100 scale) at 12 hours (MD, 2.54 [95% CI, -2.55 to 7.63]; P = 0.33) as well as morphine consumption at 24 hours (MD, 1.31 mg [95% CI, -3.06 to 7.31]; P = 0.42) were not significantly different. The incidence of nausea or vomiting (OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.27-0.73]; P = 0.002) and pruritus (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.20-0.59]; P = 0.0001) was lower in the LD group. The incidence of Apgar scores <7 at 1 minute was not different between groups (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.06-20.49]; P = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that HDs of intrathecal morphine prolong analgesia after cesarean delivery compared with lower doses. The MD of 4.5 hours (95% CI, 1.9-7.1 and 99% CI, 1.0-8.2 hours) of pain relief must be balanced against the increased risk of maternal pruritus and vomiting. Results from this study can be used by clinicians to weigh the benefits and potential side effects of using HDs of intrathecal morphine for cesarean delivery.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.056
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations205
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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