Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16856054›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term.

T Lavender, G J Hofmeyr, J P Neilson, C Kingdon, G M L Gyte

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Techniques for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

T LavenderUniversity of Central Lancashire, Department of Midwifery Studies, Preston, UK PR1 2HE. tinalav@yahoo.co.uk
G J Hofmeyr
J P Neilson
C Kingdon
G M L Gyte
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Fort Hare · ZAUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.

objectivesTo assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2005), MEDLINE (1974 to April 2005), EMBASE (1974 to April 2005), CINAHL (1982 to April 2005) and PsycINFO (1887 to April 2005). We also performed a manual search of the references of all retrieved articles, sought unpublished papers and abstracts submitted to international conferences and contacted expert informants. SELECTION CRITERIA: All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. MAIN

resultsThere were no included trials. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionTerm BirthFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID16856054
OpenAlexW4235317722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.