Is nitrous oxide (“laughing gas”) — which is frequently used to treat labor pain in other countries — gaining more acceptance in the U.S., where more aggressive pain management has traditionally been the norm?
In answering this question this story draws on many sources to mostly tout the benefits of nitrous, but falls short in providing readers — many who would be interested mothers — in two areas:
Research findings addressing these concerns should have been included. Or, if such research hasn’t been conducted, the story should have made this clear.
The story is otherwise well-rounded and did a job particularly on costs, sourcing, and availability.
The U.S. approach to labor and delivery is arguably one of the most expensive, high-tech, and medicalized in the world. According to a New York Times analysis, the charges for delivering babies in this country have tripled since 1996, and maternity and newborn expenses are now “the single biggest category of hospital payouts for most commercial insurers and state Medicaid programs.”
Issues surrounding pain management during delivery are contentious, highly personal, and potentially both expensive and fraught with concerns about complications. This means that any interventions that offer affordable and safe options have the potential to improve patient satisfaction and patient outcomes.
Stories about such interventions (like using nitrous for pain management) mean a great deal to mothers — and our health care system — and should include details about the strength of the evidence behind the claims.
The cost of nitrous oxide for use during labor in one facility ($250) is included. It’s also mentioned that most insurance plans won’t cover it.
A bonus that may have been appreciated by readers would have been comparing its price to the two most common approaches for managing labor pain (in the US): epidurals and IV narcotics.
The story lists these benefits:
But these benefits are presented anecdotally. This is unsatisfactory because — as the story rightly points out — there is extensive experience with the obstetric use of nitrous oxide in Great Britain, Finland, Canada, and Australia. Providing supportive evidence from this international experience is highly relevant.
It’s mentioned:
“Nitrous comes with some caveats. It can cause nausea and dizziness. It also interacts with vitamin B12, so women with a deficiency of the nutrient shouldn’t use the gas … but studies — and generations of use worldwide — have not found complications or long-term problems.”
This is enough for a satisfactory rating. However, we’re left asking: where’s the evidence? Some research findings to support a midwife’s statement in a review that nitrous is “safe for the mother, fetus, and neonate” would be salient for many expecting mothers.
It’s also important to point out that if you Google “nitrous oxide & harms” you will come across a much larger list of harms, some of them quite ominous. But most of these occur in the setting of the prolonged and extensive abuse of recreational nitrous oxide (aka “whippets”). But, presumably, the obstetric use of nitrous — which is a brief exposure to limited doses — would pose much less risk. Mentioning this would help clarify things.
This story never cites a specific study (though it quickly mentions a literature review), nor does it provide links to several existing studies documenting benefits and harms.
On the one hand, this article relies heavily on the anecdotal support of benefits (more so than harms); but on the other hand, we’re told that neither the American Society of Anesthesiologists nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have official positions on the use of nitrous. Why is that? Does it have something to do with the balance of benefits vs. harms? Not including evidence makes that question difficult for readers to answer.
The story employs several independent sources. A minor point, but it would have been helpful to hear from a source from one of the countries where using nitrous oxide during labor is far more commonplace, and for an ACOG spokesperson to comment on the lack of guidance on using it during labor.
Although not strictly conflict of interest issues, the article rightly points out two advocacy considerations. First, that many midwives are advocating for nitrous as a low-tech option at a time when labor and delivery are becoming increasingly medicalized. Second, that some hospitals are approaching nitrous as a marketing tool; presumably to position themselves as low-tech-friendly.
The story does well to provide relevant historical and cultural context; namely, that the traditional approach to labor pain in the US is biased toward epidural anesthesia, despite the fact that nitrous oxide is a common alternative in other countries.
Given the current opioid epidemic in this country, it may have been timely to mention the extensive use of narcotics in managing labor pain in the US.
It’s mentioned that currently “an estimated 500 U.S. hospitals and birthing centers offer nitrous — up from a handful less than a decade ago.”
It’s well established that obstetric nitrous oxide is widely used in several countries.
The story doesn’t appear to rely upon a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
With the discontinuation of @HealthNewsRevu, there's a genuine concern that well-written and researched "reality checks" in healthcare are not economically interesting. This should be disconcerting to anyone, and yet I'm only seeing more and more piling into "promising findings"
Thanks for ALL you do and have done, Gary. https://t.co/93K4hzQXZj
Thanks for sharing this with all of us today, @garyschwitzer @HealthNewsRevu
A nice gift.
#healthcare #healthcarenews #journalism #reporting #factsmatter #truthmatters https://t.co/hNHdZDl2rc
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like