↓ Skip to main content

Effects of combined spinal epidural labor analgesia on episiotomy: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of combined spinal epidural labor analgesia on episiotomy: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0381-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dandan Zhou, Hui Gong, Shan He, Wei Gao, Qiang Wang

Abstract

According to some published studies, neuraxial analgesia may be associated with prolonged labor and an increased risk for instrumental vaginal delivery. However, its effects on episiotomy are unknown. This study aimed to examine the incidence of episiotomy with and without combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) during labor. This was a retrospective cohort study, in which the computerized medical records of nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic and live births were reviewed and women with and without CSEA were matched based on their propensity scores. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine the association between CSEA and the incidence of episiotomy during vaginal delivery. In the cohort study with 11,994 vaginal deliveries, 5748 received CSEA and 6246 did not receive CSEA. 4116 CSEA women were successfully matched with 4116 Non-CSEA women. In the univariate analysis, the incidence of episiotomy was 47.4% in the CSEA group and 44.7% in the Non-CSEA group. However, after a multivariable logistic regression analysis, CSEA did not increase the risk of episiotomy (adjusted OR, 1.080; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.988-1.180). The use of CSEA during labor and vaginal delivery did not increase the risk of episiotomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 32%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,099,609
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#707
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,761
of 317,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.