MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392603121 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27717

Association between epidural analgesia and postpartum psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4392603121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Solmaz Ghanbari-Homaie, Seyedeh-Pooneh Jenani, Leili Faraji-Gavgani, Pooya Hosenzadeh, Mansour Rezaei

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOdds ratioPostpartum depressionConfidence intervalAnxietyDepression (economics)Observational studyStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologyStrictly standardized mean differencePsychiatryInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Women during the postpartum period are at risk for psychiatric disorders such as postpartum depression (PPD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety. It is controversial whether labour epidural analgesia have a protective role on PPD, PTSD, and anxiety or not. This study is a meta-analysis of previously published observational studies to investigate the association between epidural analgesia and PPD, PTSD, and anxiety. Methods: We searched Cochran Library, PubMed, ProQuest, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE from inception until December 2022. The outcome measures were positive screen of PPD, PTSD, and anxiety among women who received labour epidural analgesia. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the observational studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software. The mean differences or odds ratios were pooled based on random effect. Results: We included 31 studies (12,064 women) in the review. The meta-analysis of PPD studies reported mean (standard deviation) showed no significant association between epidural analgesia and PPD (Mean Difference = 0.01; 95% Confidence Interval = -0.14 to 0.16; p-value = 0.88). The meta-analysis of PPD studies reported percentage showed no statistically significant difference in terms of the chance of depression between the exposed and non-exposed groups (Log Odds Ratio = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.48 to 0.26; p-value = 0.17). The meta-analysis of PPD studies reported OR showed indicate a lower chance of depression in the epidural group compared to the non-epidural group (Effect size = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.38; P-value = 0.00). In the case of PTSD, due to the heterogeneity of the tools and the methodology of the studies, it was impossible to reach a definitive conclusion and measure the studies in a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of anxiety studies showed that no significant association between epidural analgesia and anxiety (MD = -1.36; 95% CI = -3.38 to 1.14; p-value = 0.29). Conclusion: Based on the meta-analysis of observational studies, epidural analgesia for labour pain relief has no protective effect on postpartum psychiatric disorders.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207