Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17253508›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.

M Mathai, G J Hofmeyr

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT01297725 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

Sharp Versus Blunt Fascial Incision at Caesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Double-blinded Case-Control Study With the Case as it's Own Control.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHolbaek SygehusRan2011 to 2011Enrolled30ConditionsCesarean SectionArmsBlunt right, sharp left, Blunt left, sharp right
NCT02152735 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Intrauterine Cleaning After Placental Delivery at Cesarean Section: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMichigan State UniversityRan2014 to 2015Enrolled206ConditionsPregnancyArmsCleaning the uterine cavity
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  8. Techniques for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  9. Intrauterine cleaning after placental delivery at cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2019
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

M MathaiWorld Health Organization, Department of Making Pregnancy Safer, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, Switzerland, CH 1211. mathaim@who.int
G J Hofmeyr
Western Cape Department of Health · ZAWorld Health Organization - Pakistan · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section is the commonest major operation performed on women worldwide. Operative techniques, including abdominal incisions, vary. Some of these techniques have been evaluated through randomised trials.

objectivesTo determine the benefits and risks of alternative methods of abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different abdominal incisions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from the sources, checked them for accuracy and analysed the data. MAIN

resultsFour studies were included in this review. Two studies (411 participants) compared the Joel-Cohen incision with the Pfannenstiel incision. Overall, there was a 65% reduction in reported postoperative morbidity (relative risk (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87) with the Joel-Cohen incision. One of the trials reported reduced postoperative analgesic requirements (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76); operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD) -11.40, 95% CI -16.55 to -6.25 minutes); delivery time (WMD -1.90, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.27); total dose of analgesia in the first 24 hours (WMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.59); estimated blood loss (WMD -58.00, 95% CI -108.51 to - 7.49 ml); postoperative hospital stay for the mother (WMD -1.50, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.84); and increased time to the first dose of analgesia (WMD 0.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.48) compared to the Pfannenstiel group. No other significant differences were found in either trial. Two studies compared muscle cutting incisions with Pfannenstiel incision. One study (68 women) comparing Mouchel incision with Pfannenstiel incision did not contribute data to this review. The other study (97 participants) comparing the Maylard muscle-cutting incision with the Pfannenstiel incision, reported no difference in febrile morbidity (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 19.50); need for blood transfusion (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.98); wound infection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.91); physical tests on muscle strength at three months postoperative and postoperative hospital stay (WMD 0.40 days, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.14). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe Joel-Cohen incision has advantages compared to the Pfannenstiel incision. These are less fever, pain and analgesic requirements; less blood loss; shorter duration of surgery and hospital stay. These advantages for the mother could be extrapolated to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on severe or long-term morbidity and mortality.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17253508
OpenAlexW4255018684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.