Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007
Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Pooled it
- Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Pooled it
- Public target interventions to reduce the inappropriate use of medicines or medical procedures: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Adjunct clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean rates: systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Pooled it
- Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Reproductive health · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Effect of shared decision making on mode of delivery and decisional conflict and regret in pregnant women with previous cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Trial
- Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.Contraception · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A cluster-randomized trial to reduce caesarean delivery rates in Quebec: cost-effectiveness analysis.BMC medicine · 2017Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of a psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing childbirth fear in pregnant women.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2014Trial
- Study protocol for reducing childbirth fear: a midwife-led psycho-education intervention.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Trial
- Preferences for mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: what do women want, what do they get and how do they value outcomes?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011Trial
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the effects of two computer based decision aids on decisional conflict and mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous caesarean section.
designRandomised trial, conducted from May 2004 to August 2006.
settingFour maternity units in south west England, and Scotland.
participants742 pregnant women with one previous lower segment caesarean section and delivery expected at >or=37 weeks. Non-English speakers were excluded.
interventionsUsual care: standard care given by obstetric and midwifery staff. Information programme: women navigated through descriptions and probabilities of clinical outcomes for mother and baby associated with planned vaginal birth, elective caesarean section, and emergency caesarean section. Decision analysis: mode of delivery was recommended based on utility assessments performed by the woman combined with probabilities of clinical outcomes within a concealed decision tree. Both interventions were delivered via a laptop computer after brief instructions from a researcher.
main outcome measuresTotal score on decisional conflict scale, and mode of delivery.
resultsWomen in the information programme (adjusted difference -6.2, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -3.7) and the decision analysis (-4.0, -6.5 to -1.5) groups had reduced decisional conflict compared with women in the usual care group. The rate of vaginal birth was higher for women in the decision analysis group compared with the usual care group (37% v 30%, adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 0.94 to 2.14), but the rates were similar in the information programme and usual care groups.
conclusionsDecision aids can help women who have had a previous caesarean section to decide on mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The decision analysis approach might substantially affect national rates of caesarean section. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84367722.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.