1990
DOI: 10.1097/00132582-199010000-00053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Epidural and Intramuscular Morphine in Patients Following Cesarean Section

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nine trials were not selected: six were non‐randomized studies (Crawford, 1981; Donchin et al, 1981; Kanto et al, 1985; Kotelko et al, 1984; Lim et al, 2005; Smith et al, 1991), and three others were retrospective studies (Chadwick and Ready, 1988; Cohen et al, 1991; Fuller et al, 1990). Eleven other studies were also excluded for the following reasons: use of two different doses of EM in the same group of patients (Pan and James, 1994), repeated EM injections (Cade and Ashley, 1993; Cade et al, 1992; Daley et al, 1990), epidural administration of sustained‐release morphine (Carvalho et al, 2005b, 2007) no analysis of postoperative pain and morphine adverse effects (Brooks et al, 1983; Choi et al, 1989), per‐protocol‐analysis including less than 80% of the patients (Binsted, 1983), CS and other surgical procedures confounded (Writer et al, 1985), elective CS and emergency CS confounded (Chambers et al, 1983). Finally, 10 randomized studies evaluating the analgesic and adverse effects of EM after elective CS were included in this meta‐analysis (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nine trials were not selected: six were non‐randomized studies (Crawford, 1981; Donchin et al, 1981; Kanto et al, 1985; Kotelko et al, 1984; Lim et al, 2005; Smith et al, 1991), and three others were retrospective studies (Chadwick and Ready, 1988; Cohen et al, 1991; Fuller et al, 1990). Eleven other studies were also excluded for the following reasons: use of two different doses of EM in the same group of patients (Pan and James, 1994), repeated EM injections (Cade and Ashley, 1993; Cade et al, 1992; Daley et al, 1990), epidural administration of sustained‐release morphine (Carvalho et al, 2005b, 2007) no analysis of postoperative pain and morphine adverse effects (Brooks et al, 1983; Choi et al, 1989), per‐protocol‐analysis including less than 80% of the patients (Binsted, 1983), CS and other surgical procedures confounded (Writer et al, 1985), elective CS and emergency CS confounded (Chambers et al, 1983). Finally, 10 randomized studies evaluating the analgesic and adverse effects of EM after elective CS were included in this meta‐analysis (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dose of 10 mg of parenteral morphine was chosen because, firstly, it is a popular method of analgesia after caesarean section in France and, secondly, a recent study suggested that a dose of 5 mg of parenteral morphine may not be sufficient as a loading dose to start postoperative analgesia after caesarean section (20). The onset of analgesia occurred within 15 to 20 min following the injection of either subcutaneous morphine or epidural clonidine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Additional RCTs comparing single-injection epidural opioids with intravenous opioids report inconsistent findings regarding respiratory depression, respiratory failure, somnolence, or sedation (Category A2-E evidence). [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Additional RCTs comparing single-injection epidural opioids with intravenous opioids report inconsistent findings regarding respiratory depression, respiratory failure, somnolence, or sedation (Category A2-E evidence).…”
Section: Route Of Administrationmentioning
confidence: 99%