↓ Skip to main content

Supplemental oxygen for caesarean section during regional anaesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Supplemental oxygen for caesarean section during regional anaesthesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006161.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sunisa Chatmongkolchart, Sumidtra Prathep

Abstract

Supplementary oxygen is routinely administered to low-risk pregnant women during an elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia; however, maternal and foetal outcomes have not been well established. This is an update of a review first published in 2013. The primary objective was to determine whether supplementary oxygen given to low-risk term pregnant women undergoing elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia can prevent maternal and neonatal desaturation. The secondary objective was to compare the mean values of maternal and neonatal blood gas levels between mothers who received supplementary oxygen and those who did not (control group). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to November 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to November 2014). The original search was first performed in February 2012. We reran the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE in February 2016. One potential new study of interest was added to the list of 'Studies awaiting Classification' and will be incorporated into the formal review findings during the next review update. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-risk pregnant women undergoing an elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and compared outcomes with, and without, oxygen supplementation. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed methodological quality and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We found one new included study in this updated version. In total, our updated review includes 11 trials (with 753 participants). The low quality of evidence showed no significant differences in average Apgar scores at one minute (N = six trials, 519 participants; 95% confidence (CI) -0.16 to 0.31, P = 0.53) and at five minutes (N = six trials, 519 participants; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06, P = 0.98). None of the 11 trials reported maternal desaturation. The very low quality of evidence showed that in comparison to room air, women in labour receiving supplementary oxygen had higher maternal oxygen saturation (N = three trials, 209 participants), maternal PaO2 (oxygen pressure in the blood; N = six trials, 241 participants), UaPO2 (foetal umbilical arterial blood; N = eight trials, 504 participants; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9, P < 0.0001) and UvPO2 (foetal umbilical venous blood; N = 10 trials, 683 participants). There was high heterogeneity among these outcomes. A subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in UaPO2 between the two intervention groups in low-risk studies, whereas the high-risk studies showed a benefit for the neonatal oxygen group. Overall, we found no convincing evidence that giving supplementary oxygen to healthy term pregnant women during elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia is either beneficial or harmful for either the mother or the foetus' short-term clinical outcome as assessed by Apgar scores. Although, there were significant higher maternal and neonatal blood gas values and markers of free radicals when extra oxygen was given, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the low grade quality of the evidence.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Other 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Psychology 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,285,784
of 16,641,846 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,064
of 11,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,741
of 311,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,641,846 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 311,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.