Cochrane · systematic review · CD008100
Combined spinal‐epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section
Simmons, SW, Dennis, AT, Cyna, AM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
8
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 1 · 12.5%Very low 3 · 37.5%Low 3 · 37.5%Moderate 1 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Combined spinal‐epidural compared to high‐dose spinal for caesarean section
Population: women having a caesarean section
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of women requiring a repeat regional block or a general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade Combined spinal‐epidural vs high‐dose spinal | RR 0.32 [0.05, 1.97] | 7 studies · 341 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of women requiring supplemental intra‐operative analgesia at any time after CSE or spinal anaesthetic insertion Combined spinal‐epidural vs high‐dose spinal | RR 1.25 [0.19, 8.43] | 7 studies · 390 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of women requiring intra‐operative conversion to general anaesthesia Combined spinal‐epidural vs high‐dose spinal | RR 1 [0.07, 14.95] | 7 studies · 388 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Number of women satisfied with anaesthesia Combined spinal‐epidural vs high‐dose spinal | RR 0.93 [0.73, 1.19] | 2 studies · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Combined spinal‐epidural compared to low‐dose spinal for caesarean section
Population: women having a caesarean section
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of women requiring a repeat regional block or a general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade Combined spinal‐epidural vs low‐dose spinal | RR 4.81 [0.24, 97.8] | 3 studies · 224 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of women requiring supplemental intra‐operative analgesia at any time after CSE or spinal anaesthetic insertion Combined spinal‐epidural vs low‐dose spinal | RR 1.75 [0.78, 3.92] | 4 studies · 298 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of women requiring intra‐operative conversion to general anaesthesia Combined spinal‐epidural vs low‐dose spinal | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 222 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of women satisfied with anaesthesia Combined spinal‐epidural vs low‐dose spinal | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |