Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Combined spinal‐epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 10 octubre 2019

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008100Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 07 octubre 2009see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Scott W Simmons

    Correspondencia a: Department of Anaesthesia, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Australia

    [email protected]

  • John A Crowhurst

    Department of Anaesthesia, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Australia

  • Allan M Cyna

    Department of Women's Anaesthesia, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

  • Alicia T Dennis

    Department of Anaesthesia, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Australia

Contributions of authors

The review was conceived by Drs Simmons, Cyna and Dennis as an obvious extension of the previously published review comparing combined spinal‐epidural (CSE) and epidural block for labour analgesia. Dr Simmons, as the lead author on the most recent update of that review, will be the guarantor for this review. Dr Crowhurst is a senior consultant anaesthetist who has published widely on the topic of CSE in obstetrics and brings considerable experience to this review and has contributed much of the background material specifically in relation to CSE in obstetrics. It is anticipated that papers will be independently reviewed by Drs Simmons, Crowhurst and Dennis with Dr Cyna providing arbitration as necessary.

Declarations of interest

From 1997 to 2003 Dr Crowhurst acted as a consultant for Smiths Medical (UK), for which he received consultant fees and financial assistance to attend conferences and conduct workshops/symposia on combined spinal‐epidural (CSE), by invitation, in several different countries. From July 2004 to May 2005, Smiths Medical (UK) provided some or all of the costs incurred in conducting lectures/workshops/symposia on CSE, by invitation, at ANZCA, ASA and other postgraduate education meetings/conferences in Brisbane, Sydney, Gold Coast, New Delhi and Auckland. In none of these roles was Dr Crowhurst under any obligation to promote or favour any Smiths Medical products or promotions.

Acknowledgements

Philippa Middleton for administrative support.

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, this protocol has been commented on by three peers (an editor and two referees who are external to the editorial team), a member of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's international panel of consumers and the Group's Statistical Adviser.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2019 Oct 10

Combined spinal‐epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Review

Scott W Simmons, Alicia T Dennis, Allan M Cyna, Matthew G Richardson, Matthew R Bright

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008100.pub2

2009 Oct 07

Combined spinal‐epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Protocol

Scott W Simmons, John A Crowhurst, Allan M Cyna, Alicia T Dennis

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008100

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.