MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570833119 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000001798

Dural Puncture Epidural Technique Improves Labor Analgesia Quality With Fewer Side Effects Compared With Epidural and Combined Spinal Epidural Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2017· article· en· W2570833119 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaHarvard Catalyst
KeywordsMedicineBupivacaineHazard ratioAnesthesiaFentanylConfidence intervalAdverse effectEpidural administrationIntrathecalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique is a modification of the combined spinal epidural (CSE) technique, where a dural perforation is created from a spinal needle but intrathecal medication administration is withheld. The DPE technique has been shown to improve caudal spread of analgesia compared with epidural (EPL) technique without the side effects observed with the CSE technique. We hypothesized that the onset of labor analgesia would follow this order: CSE > DPE > EPL techniques. METHODS: A total of 120 parturients in early labor were randomly assigned to EPL, DPE, or CSE groups. Initial dosing for EPL and DPE consisted of epidural 20 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 μg/mL over 5 minutes, and for CSE, intrathecal 0.25% bupivacaine 1.7 mg and fentanyl 17 μg. Upon block completion, a blinded coinvestigator assessed the outcomes. Two blinded obstetricians retrospectively interpreted uterine contractions and fetal heart rate tracings 1 hour before and after the neuraxial technique. The primary outcome was time to numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) ≤ 1 analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes included block quality, maternal adverse effects, uterine contraction patterns, and fetal outcomes analyzed by using the χ test with Yates continuity correction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the time to NPRS ≤ 1 between DPE and EPL (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.4, P = .21). DPE achieved NPRS ≤ 1 significantly slower than CSE (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% CI 0.22-0.59, P = .0001). The median times (interquartile range) to NPRS ≤ 1 were 2 (0.5-6) minutes for CSE, 11 (4-120) minutes for DPE, and 18 (10-120) minutes for EPL. Compared with EPL, DPE had significantly greater incidence of bilateral S2 blockade at 10 minutes (risk ratio [RR] 2.13; 95% CI 1.39-3.28; P < .001), 20 minutes (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.26-2.03; P < .001), and 30 minutes (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.30; P < .034), a lower incidence of asymmetric block after 30 minutes (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; P < .001) and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; P = .011). Compared with CSE, DPE had a significantly lower incidence of pruritus (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.38; P < .001), hypotension (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.15-0.98; P = .032), combined uterine tachysystole and hypertonus (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.60; P < .001), and physician top-up intervention (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.86; p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Analgesia onset was most rapid with CSE with no difference between DPE and EPL techniques. The DPE technique has improved block quality over the EPL technique with fewer maternal and fetal side effects than the CSE technique for parturients requesting early labor analgesia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · 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