MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416586799 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000005868

Incidence of Pain during Cesarean Delivery with Neuraxial Anesthesia: An International, Prospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4416586799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James O’Carroll, Daniel J. Conti, Nan Gao, Brendan Carvalho, Pervez Sultan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Cesarean deliveryProspective cohort studyCohort studyCohortSpinal anesthesiaPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial anesthesia techniques are considered the preferred techniques for cesarean delivery; however, the true incidence of pain during cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia is not currently known. To date, studies have been retrospective or conducted in a single center. The primary aim of this international cohort study was to prospectively determine the incidence of patient-reported pain during cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: Over 8 weeks, a multicenter cohort study was conducted in 15 centers across the United States and Canada. All patients who underwent cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia were surveyed on postpartum day 1 regarding the presence of intraoperative pain and were asked to grade their pain using a numeric rating score (0 to 10) and rate their satisfaction (yes or no) with their pain management. RESULTS: A total of 3,693 patients were included in the analysis. An overall incidence of patient-reported pain during cesarean delivery was 7.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8 to 8.5%) with 282 of 3,693 patients reporting pain. In patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery, intraoperative pain was reported in 3.7% (95% CI, 2.7 to 5.0%) with spinal, 9.2% (95% CI, 6.7 to 12.2%) with combined spinal-epidural, and 12.2% (95% CI, 4.1 to 26.2%) with epidural top-up anesthesia. In the non-elective setting, pain was more commonly reported by patients: 5.7% (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.8%) with spinal, 7.1% (95% CI, 4.7 to 10.1%) with combined spinal-epidural, 8.0% (95% CI, 2.2 to 19.2%) with dural puncture epidural, and 13.2% (95% CI, 11.1 to 15.5%) with epidural top-up anesthesia. Patients who had intraoperative pain reported a median (interquartile range) numeric rating score of 6 (4 to 8) out of 10. In those who reported pain, dissatisfaction with how the pain was managed by the anesthesia team was reported by 29 (10.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of patient-reported pain during cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia in this multicenter cohort was 7.6%. This varied significantly by anesthesia technique, with spinal having the lowest incidence and epidural top-up having the highest. Further work is required to characterize the pain experience, understand its impact, and develop techniques to reduce its incidence.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207