The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of epidural analgesia with intravenous (IV) analgesia on the outcome of labor. METHODS: Thirteen hundred thirty women with uncomplicated term pregnancies and in spontaneous labor were randomized to be offered epidural bupivacaine-fentanyl or IV meperidine analgesia during labor. RESULTS: Comparison of the allocation groups by intent to treat revealed a significant association between epidural allocation and operative delivery for dystocia. However, only 65% of each randomization group accepted the allocated treatment. Four hundred thirty-seven women accepted and received meperidine as allocated, and they were compared with 432 women accepting epidural allocation. Significant associations resulted between epidural administration and prolongation of labor, increased rate of oxytocin administration, chorioamnionitis, low forceps, and cesarean delivery. Because of the high rate of noncompliance with treatment allocation, a multifactorial regression analysis was performed on the entire cohort, and a twofold relative risk of cesarean delivery persisted in association with epidural treatment. The impact of epidural treatment on cesarean delivery was significant for both nulliparous and parous women (risk ratios 2.55 and 3.81, respectively). Epidural analgesia provided significantly better pain relief in labor than did parenteral meperidine. CONCLUSION: Although labor epidural analgesia is superior to meperidine for pain relief, labor is prolonged, uterine infection is increased, and the number of operative deliveries are increased. A two- to fourfold increased risk of cesarean delivery is associated with epidural treatment in both nulliparous and parous women.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour
Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, R. M., & Jones, L. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000331.pub3 · Cited by 855
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour
Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, R. M., Cyna, A. M., & Cuthbert, A. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000331.pub4 · Cited by 643
Antepartum Depressive Symptomatology Is Associated With Adverse Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes
Chung, T. K. H., Lau, T. K., Yip, A. S. K., Chiu, H. F. K., & Lee, D. T. S. (2001) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-200109000-00017 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- RAMIN, S., GAMBLING, D., LUCAS, M., SHARMA, S., ELAINESIDAWI, J., & LEVENO, K.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 783-789
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998771814
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.74
- 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: Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00269-w
- The paper
- RAMIN, S., GAMBLING, D., LUCAS, M., SHARMA, S., ELAINESIDAWI, J., & LEVENO, K. (1995). Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00269-w
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.