MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612643447 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002076

The Labor Analgesia Requirements in Nulliparous Women Randomized to Epidural Catheter Placement in a High or Low Intervertebral Space

2017· article· en· W2612643447 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Moore, Valérie Villeneuve, Bruno de Arruda Bravim, Aly Elbahrawy, Eva el-Mouallem, Ian Kaufman, Roupen Hatzakorzian, William Li Pi Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaInterquartile rangeLidocaineEpidural spaceBupivacaineCatheterFentanylRandomized controlled trialSurgeryLocal anesthetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that an epidural catheter placed in a lower vertebral interspace will require less medication for labor analgesia. METHODS: Nulliparous women requesting neuraxial labor analgesia were randomized to epidural catheter placement at the ultrasound-confirmed L1-2 or L4-5 interspace. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia and breakthrough manual epidural boluses of 10 mL of 0.125% bupivacaine with 50 µg of fentanyl or 8 mL of 2% lidocaine were utilized. Abdominal and perineal pain scores were assessed at 30 and 60 minutes after standardized initiation of epidural analgesia. Pain scores during pushing were assessed after delivery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring manual boluses and was compared using a χ test. Secondarily, we analyzed the number of boluses given in early (up to 4 hours before delivery) versus late labor using χ tests and the pain scores using Mann-Whitney U tests, with adjustment of P values for multiple testing. RESULTS: We analyzed 148 patients. Overall, the percentage of patients in the low versus high groups who required manual boluses was 46% vs 51% (P = 1.0). For the 56 patients in each group who delivered vaginally, 22 (52%) vs 20 (48%) manual boluses were given to the low epidural group in early versus late labor, compared to 9 (20%) vs 36 (80%) in the high epidural group (P = .014). There was no statistical difference in patient-controlled epidural analgesia requirements or patient satisfaction. Comparing the low versus high groups, the median (interquartile range) pain scores were: 3 (1, 6) vs 0 (0, 2) (P = .013) at 30 minutes and 1 (1, 3) vs 0 (0, 1) (P = .013) at 60 minutes for abdominal pain; 0 (0, 2) vs 1 (1, 3) (P = .36) and 0 (0, 1) vs 1 (1, 3) (P = .014) at these same time points for perineal pain; and 1 (0, 5) vs 0 (0, 3) (P = .9) for abdominal and 2 (0, 5) vs 4 (1, 8) (P = .025) for perineal pain during pushing. The percentage of patients who underwent instrumental delivery was 15% vs 5% (P = .06) for the low versus high group. CONCLUSIONS: An L4-5 epidural catheter initially provides less relief of abdominal pain but more relief of perineal labor pain. Patients with an L4-5 catheter require more manual boluses during early labor but less during late labor. The possible association of low epidural catheters with instrumental delivery merits further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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