Cochrane CSEAvsEA4CS
.PDF
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 2 Number of women with effective analgesia 10 minutes after first injection.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 2 Number of women with effective analgesia 10 minutes after first injection
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
Risk Ratio |
Weight |
Risk Ratio |
||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Zeidan 2004 |
50/50 |
26/51 |
|
|
|
100.0 % |
1.94 [ 1.49, 2.54 ] |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
Total (95% CI) |
50 |
51 |
|
|
|
100.0 % |
1.94 [ 1.49, 2.54 ] |
Total events: 50 (CSE), 26 (Epidural)
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.86 (P < 0.00001)
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
Favours epidural |
|
Favours CSE |
|
|||
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 3 Need for rescue analgesia.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 3 Need for rescue analgesia
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
||||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMET 2001a |
80/351 |
86/350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.93 [ 0.71, 1.21 ] |
Hepner 2000 |
0/26 |
0/24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Nickells 2000 |
9/69 |
9/73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.06 [ 0.45, 2.51 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Price 1998 |
15/45 |
18/48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.89 [ 0.51, 1.54 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Zeidan 2004 |
0/50 |
0/51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
541 |
546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.93 [ 0.74, 1.17 ] |
Total events: 104 (CSE), 113 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.11, df = 2 (P = 0.95); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01 |
0.1 |
|
1 |
10 |
100 |
||
|
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
|
|
Favours epidural |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Continued . . . ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|||
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(. . . Continued) |
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
|
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
||
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.60 (P = 0.55) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
||
Dunn 1998 |
0/35 |
1/34 |
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
35 |
34 |
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
Total events: 0 (CSE), 1 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.49) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Null combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas 2005 |
14/125 |
10/123 |
|
|
|
1.38 [ 0.64, 2.98 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
125 |
123 |
|
|
|
1.38 [ 0.64, 2.98 ] |
Total events: 14 (CSE), 10 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.81 (P = 0.42) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
701 |
703 |
|
|
|
0.96 [ 0.77, 1.20 ] |
Total events: 118 (CSE), 124 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.48, df = 4 (P = 0.83); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01 |
0.1 |
1 |
10 |
100 |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
59 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 4 Number of women satisfied with analgesia.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 4 Number of women satisfied with analgesia
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
|
Risk Ratio |
|
Risk Ratio |
|||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Random,95% CI |
M-H,Random,95% CI |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepner 2000 |
25/26 |
19/24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.21 [ 0.98, 1.51 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Kartawiadi 1996 |
32/32 |
31/31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Van de Velde 1999 |
53/55 |
48/55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.10 [ 0.99, 1.24 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Vernis 2004 |
53/54 |
58/59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.00 [ 0.95, 1.05 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Zeidan 2004 |
42/42 |
42/42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Total (95% CI) |
209 |
211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.08 [ 0.93, 1.25 ] |
Total events: 205 (CSE), 198 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.01; Chi2 = 9.79, df = 2 (P = 0.01); I2 =80% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.04 (P = 0.30) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
||
|
|
Favours epidural |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
||||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
60 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
|
|
|
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 5 Number of women who mobilise.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 5 Number of women who mobilise
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
|
Risk Ratio |
|
Weight |
Risk Ratio |
|
|
n/N |
n/N |
|
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMET 2001a |
133/351 |
128/350 |
|
|
|
|
|
53.2 % |
1.04 [ 0.85, 1.26 ] |
Parry 1998 |
27/30 |
27/30 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.2 % |
1.00 [ 0.84, 1.18 ] |
Price 1998 |
21/45 |
28/48 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.3 % |
0.80 [ 0.54, 1.19 ] |
Zeidan 2004 |
33/50 |
31/51 |
|
|
|
|
|
12.7 % |
1.09 [ 0.81, 1.46 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
476 |
479 |
|
|
|
|
|
88.4 % |
1.01 [ 0.88, 1.15 ] |
Total events: 214 (CSE), 214 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.66, df = 3 (P = 0.65); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.13 (P = 0.90) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Breen 1999 |
20/21 |
13/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
5.7 % |
1.39 [ 1.01, 1.92 ] |
Dunn 1998 |
17/35 |
14/34 |
|
|
|
|
|
5.9 % |
1.18 [ 0.70, 2.00 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
56 |
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.6 % |
1.28 [ 0.95, 1.74 ] |
Total events: 37 (CSE), 27 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.34, df = 1 (P = 0.56); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.60 (P = 0.11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
532 |
532 |
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 % |
1.04 [ 0.92, 1.18 ] |
Total events: 251 (CSE), 241 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 5.40, df = 5 (P = 0.37); I2 =7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.63 (P = 0.53) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
|
|
|
Favours epidural |
|
Favours CSE |
|
|
|||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
61 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 6 Post dural puncture headache.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 6 Post dural puncture headache
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
|||||||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepner 2000 |
0/26 |
0/24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Kartawiadi 1996 |
2/32 |
1/31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.94 [ 0.18, 20.30 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Parry 1998 |
0/30 |
0/30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Price 1998 |
0/45 |
0/48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Van de Velde 1999 |
0/55 |
0/55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Vernis 2004 |
2/54 |
0/59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.45 [ 0.27, 111.13 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Zeidan 2004 |
0/50 |
0/51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
292 |
298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.06 [ 0.50, 18.69 ] |
Total events: 4 (CSE), 1 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.29, df = 1 (P = 0.59); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.21 (P = 0.23) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Dunn 1998 |
0/35 |
1/34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Subtotal (95% CI) |
35 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
Total events: 0 (CSE), 1 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.49) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abouleish 1991 |
0/20 |
0/22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
20 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Total events: 0 (CSE), 0 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P < 0.00001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
347 |
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.68 [ 0.42, 6.81 ] |
Total events: 4 (CSE), 2 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.64, df = 2 (P = 0.44); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.73 (P = 0.47) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.001 0.01 |
0.1 |
|
1 |
10 |
100 |
1000 |
|||||
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
|
Favours epidural |
||||||||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
62 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
|
|
|
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 7 Known dural tap.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 7 Known dural tap
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMET 2001a |
0/351 |
3/350 |
|
|
|
|
0.14 [ 0.01, 2.75 ] |
Hepner 2000 |
0/26 |
0/24 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Nickells 2000 |
0/69 |
0/73 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Vernis 2004 |
1/54 |
0/59 |
|
|
|
|
3.27 [ 0.14, 78.67 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
500 |
506 |
|
|
|
|
0.52 [ 0.10, 2.75 ] |
Total events: 1 (CSE), 3 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.02, df = 1 (P = 0.16); I2 =51% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.77 (P = 0.44) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Dunn 1998 |
0/35 |
0/34 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
35 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Total events: 0 (CSE), 0 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P < 0.00001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Null combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas 2005 |
2/127 |
1/124 |
|
|
|
|
1.95 [ 0.18, 21.26 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
127 |
124 |
|
|
|
|
1.95 [ 0.18, 21.26 ] |
Total events: 2 (CSE), 1 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.55 (P = 0.58) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
662 |
664 |
|
|
|
|
0.81 [ 0.22, 2.98 ] |
Total events: 3 (CSE), 4 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.59, df = 2 (P = 0.27); I2 =23% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.001 0.01 |
0.1 |
1 |
10 |
100 |
1000 |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
|||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
63 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 8 Number of women requiring blood patch for post dural puncture headache.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 8 Number of women requiring blood patch for post dural puncture headache
Study or subgroup |
Treatment |
Control |
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kartawiadi 1996 |
2/32 |
0/31 |
|
|
|
|
4.85 [ 0.24, 97.11 ] |
Price 1998 |
0/45 |
0/48 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Zeidan 2004 |
0/50 |
0/51 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
127 |
130 |
|
|
|
|
4.85 [ 0.24, 97.11 ] |
Total events: 2 (Treatment), 0 (Control) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.0, df = 0 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.03 (P = 0.30) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Dunn 1998 |
0/35 |
1/34 |
|
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
35 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
0.32 [ 0.01, 7.69 ] |
Total events: 0 (Treatment), 1 (Control) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.49) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abouleish 1991 |
0/20 |
0/22 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Hepner 2000 |
0/26 |
0/24 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Vernis 2004 |
2/54 |
0/59 |
|
|
|
|
5.45 [ 0.27, 111.13 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
100 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
5.45 [ 0.27, 111.13 ] |
Total events: 2 (Treatment), 0 (Control) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.0, df = 0 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.10 (P = 0.27) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
262 |
269 |
|
|
|
|
2.22 [ 0.51, 9.64 ] |
Total events: 4 (Treatment), 1 (Control) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.02, df = 2 (P = 0.36); I2 =1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.06 (P = 0.29) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.001 0.01 |
0.1 |
1 |
10 |
100 |
1000 |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
|||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
64 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 9 Pruritus.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 9 Pruritus
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
|
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepner 2000 |
24/26 |
21/24 |
|
|
|
1.05 [ 0.87, 1.27 ] |
Kartawiadi 1996 |
17/32 |
8/31 |
|
|
|
2.06 [ 1.04, 4.06 ] |
Price 1998 |
25/45 |
26/48 |
|
|
|
1.03 [ 0.71, 1.48 ] |
Van de Velde 1999 |
27/55 |
20/55 |
|
|
|
1.35 [ 0.87, 2.10 ] |
Vernis 2004 |
34/54 |
7/59 |
|
|
|
5.31 [ 2.57, 10.96 ] |
Zeidan 2004 |
0/50 |
0/51 |
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
262 |
268 |
|
|
|
1.57 [ 1.29, 1.90 ] |
Total events: 127 (CSE), 82 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 34.01, df = 4 (P<0.00001); I2 =88% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.50 (P < 0.00001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abouleish 1991 |
6/20 |
1/22 |
|
|
|
6.60 [ 0.87, 50.18 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
20 |
22 |
|
|
|
6.60 [ 0.87, 50.18 ] |
Total events: 6 (CSE), 1 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.82 (P = 0.068) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
282 |
290 |
|
|
|
1.62 [ 1.34, 1.97 ] |
Total events: 133 (CSE), 83 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 39.47, df = 5 (P<0.00001); I2 =87% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.87 (P < 0.00001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.01 |
0.1 |
1 |
10 |
100 |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
65 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.10. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 10 Urinary retention.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 10 Urinary retention
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
|
Risk Ratio |
|
Weight |
Risk Ratio |
|
|
n/N |
n/N |
|
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMET 2001a |
244/351 |
222/350 |
|
|
|
|
|
93.6 % |
1.10 [ 0.99, 1.22 ] |
Price 1998 |
5/45 |
9/48 |
|
|
|
|
|
3.7 % |
0.59 [ 0.21, 1.63 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
396 |
398 |
|
|
|
|
|
97.2 % |
1.08 [ 0.97, 1.20 ] |
Total events: 249 (CSE), 231 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.44, df = 1 (P = 0.23); I2 =30% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.37 (P = 0.17) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Abouleish 1991 |
9/16 |
7/18 |
|
|
|
|
|
2.8 % |
1.45 [ 0.70, 2.98 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
16 |
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
2.8 % |
1.45 [ 0.70, 2.98 ] |
Total events: 9 (CSE), 7 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.00 (P = 0.32) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
412 |
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 % |
1.09 [ 0.98, 1.21 ] |
Total events: 258 (CSE), 238 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.00, df = 2 (P = 0.37); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.56 (P = 0.12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
|
|||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
66 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Analysis 2.11. Comparison 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural, Outcome 11 Nausea/vomiting.
Review: Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour
Comparison: 2 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural
Outcome: 11 Nausea/vomiting
Study or subgroup |
CSE |
Epidural |
|
Risk Ratio |
Risk Ratio |
||
|
n/N |
n/N |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
M-H,Fixed,95% CI |
|||
1 Combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hepner 2000 |
3/26 |
2/24 |
|
|
|
|
1.38 [ 0.25, 7.59 ] |
Van de Velde 1999 |
11/55 |
13/55 |
|
|
|
|
0.85 [ 0.42, 1.72 ] |
Zeidan 2004 |
0/50 |
0/51 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
131 |
130 |
|
|
|
|
0.92 [ 0.48, 1.77 ] |
Total events: 14 (CSE), 15 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.28, df = 1 (P = 0.60); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.25 (P = 0.80) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus test local anaesthetic/opioid epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Dunn 1998 |
7/35 |
7/34 |
|
|
|
|
0.97 [ 0.38, 2.48 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
35 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
0.97 [ 0.38, 2.48 ] |
Total events: 7 (CSE), 7 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.06 (P = 0.95) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 Opioid combined spinal-epidural versus low-dose epidural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abouleish 1991 |
4/20 |
0/22 |
|
|
|
|
9.86 [ 0.56, 172.33 ] |
Subtotal (95% CI) |
20 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
9.86 [ 0.56, 172.33 ] |
Total events: 4 (CSE), 0 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: not applicable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.57 (P = 0.12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (95% CI) |
186 |
186 |
|
|
|
|
1.12 [ 0.67, 1.87 ] |
Total events: 25 (CSE), 22 (Epidural) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.98, df = 3 (P = 0.39); I2 =0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.45 (P = 0.65) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.001 0.01 |
0.1 |
1 |
10 |
100 |
1000 |
|
|
Favours CSE |
|
Favours epidural |
|||
Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour (Review) |
67 |
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.