RESUMEN
Background and Aims: There are scanty data for oxytocin dose in patients at high risk of uterine atony. We aimed to compare the effective dose (ED) 90 of oxytocin for adequate uterine tone during the caesarean section in patients at high-risk vs low-risk uterine atony. Methods: This dose-finding study was undertaken after ethical approval in non-labouring women aged >18 years with pre-defined risk factors for uterine atony (high-risk group) vs those without such factors (low-risk group) (n = 39 each). Starting dose of oxytocin in the first patient of low-risk and high-risk groups was 1 and 3 IU, respectively. Achieving adequate uterine tone at 3 min of oxytocin bolus was designated 'success', while inadequate tone constituted 'failure'. If the response was 'failure', the dose of oxytocin was increased for the next patient by 0.5 or 0.2 IU (high- and low-risk groups, respectively). In case of a successful response, the dose for the next patient was decreased with a probability of 1/9 using the same dosing intervals or otherwise kept unchanged. Results: The ED90 (95% CI) of oxytocin bolus was 4.7 (3.3-6.0) IU for the high-risk group and 2.2 (1.3-3.2) IU for the low-risk group (P = 0.044). Oxytocin-associated tachycardia (P = 0.247) and hypotension (P = 0.675) were clinically greater for the high-risk vs low-risk group but statistically similar. Conclusion: Non-labouring patients with high-risk factors for uterine atony require a greater dose of initial oxytocin bolus to achieve adequate uterine tone during the caesarean section compared to those without risk factors.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: Despite the importance of statistics being well established for medical research, it remains a neglected area of understanding and learning. The present survey aimed to examine the use of various statistical methods in a two-year sample (2019-2020) of representative Indian anaesthesia journals and compare it with an international top-ranked journal. Methods: The literature survey included analysis of 748 original articles from 'Indian Journal of Anaesthesia' (179), 'Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology' (125) and 'Anesthesia & Analgesia' (444) published over the period. Original research articles were identified from the table of contents of each issue. Articles were assessed for statistical methods, categorised as being descriptive, elementary, multivariable, advanced multivariate or diagnostic/classification. Results: Compared to Anesthesia & Analgesia, the Indian journals (considered together) had a significantly greater use of mean (standard deviation) (91.2% versus 70%) and percentages (79.5% versus 67.6%) (P = 0.000 each); and lesser for Wilcoxon (5.4% versus 14.6%) and Pearson/Spearman (5.1% versus 13.5%) correlation tests (P = 0.000 each), multivariable tests including various regression methods (P < 0.001), classification/diagnostic tests [Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, P = 0.022; sensitivity/specificity, P = 0.000; precision, P = 0.006; and relative risk/risk ratio, P = 0.010] and a virtual absence of complex multivariate tests. Conclusion: The findings show limited use of advanced complex statistical methods in Indian anaesthesia journals, usually being restricted to descriptive or elementary. There was a strong bias towards using randomised controlled designs. The findings suggest an urgent and focussed need on training in research methodology, including statistical methods, during postgraduation and continued medical training.