Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Epidural vs Parenteral Opioid Analgesia on the Progress of Labor: A Meta-analysis

Halpern, Stephen H., Leighton, Barbara L., Ohlsson, Arne, Barrett, Jon F. R., Rice, Amy·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Epidural labor analgesia, if selected by the patient, is associated with high cesarean delivery rates. Results of randomized trials comparing rates of cesarean delivery using epidural anesthesia vs parenteral opioids are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of epidural vs parenteral opioid analgesia on cesarean delivery rates. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE from January 1966 through January 1998, the Cochrane Database of Perinatal Trials, and relevant nonindexed journals and abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: We included all studies that randomized patients to epidural vs parenteral opioid labor analgesia. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from 10 trials enrolling 2369 patients. Odds ratios (ORs) for categorical data, weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The risk of cesarean delivery did not differ between patients receiving epidural (8.2%) vs parenteral opioid (5.6%) analgesia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.81-2.76). Epidural patients had longer first (WMD, 42 minutes; 95% CI, 17-68 minutes) and second (WMD, 14 minutes; 95% CI, 5-23 minutes) labor stages. While epidural patients were more likely to have instrumented delivery (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.32-7.78), they were no more likely to have instrumented delivery for dystocia (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.31-1.49). After epidural analgesia, neonates were less likely to have low 5-minute Apgar scores (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81) or to need naloxone (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.77). Women receiving epidural analgesia had lower pain scores during the first (WMD, -40 mm on a 100-mm scale; 95% CI, -42 to -38 mm) and second (WMD, -29 mm; 95% CI, -38 to -21 mm) stages of labor. The odds of dissatisfaction were lower with epidural analgesia (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural labor analgesia is not associated with increased rates of instrumented vaginal delivery for dystocia or cesarean delivery. Patients receiving epidural analgesia have longer labors. Patient satisfaction and neonatal outcome are better after epidural than parenteral opioid analgesia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.24.2105

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Halpern, S. H., Leighton, B. L., Ohlsson, A., Barrett, J. F. R., & Rice, A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-12-23
Volume
280
Issue
24
Pages
2105
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1986739121
Cited by
264
References
1
FWCI
18.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Epidural vs Parenteral Opioid Analgesia on the Progress of Labor: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.280.24.2105
The paper
Halpern, S. H., Leighton, B. L., Ohlsson, A., Barrett, J. F. R., & Rice, A. (1998). Effect of Epidural vs Parenteral Opioid Analgesia on the Progress of Labor: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.24.2105

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.