Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18336721›Full record

Trial reportBMC pregnancy and childbirth2007

The CORONIS Trial. International study of caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised fractional, factorial trial.

CORONIS Trial Collaborative Group

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

NCT01217567 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2010, after this paper: background citation

Subcuticular Suture Versus Staples for Closure of the Skin After Caesarean Section: A Prospective Randomized Single-blinded Case-Control Study With the Case as it's Own Control.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHolbaek SygehusRan2010 to 2012Enrolled60ConditionsCesarean Section, CicatrixArmsStaples left, subcuticular suture right, Subcuticular suture left side and staples right
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
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Techniques for caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Caesarean Section Techniques among Senior Obstetricians in Nigeria: A Descriptive Multicentre Survey.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

CORONIS Trial Collaborative GroupNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK . peter.brocklehurst@npeu.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0500959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section is one of the most commonly performed operations on women throughout the world. Rates have increased in recent years - about 20-25% in many developed countries. Rates in other parts of the world vary widely.A variety of surgical techniques for all elements of the caesarean section operation are in use. Many have not yet been rigorously evaluated in randomised controlled trials, and it is not known whether any are associated with better outcomes for women and babies. Because huge numbers of women undergo caesarean section, even small differences in post-operative morbidity rates between techniques could translate into improved health for substantial numbers of women, and significant cost savings.

designCORONIS is a multicentre, fractional, factorial randomised controlled trial and will be conducted in centres in Argentina, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Sudan. Women are eligible if they are undergoing their first or second caesarean section through a transverse abdominal incision. Five comparisons will be carried out in one trial, using a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 fractional factorial design. This design has rarely been used, but is appropriate for the evaluation of several procedures which will be used together in clinical practice. The interventions are:* Blunt versus sharp abdominal entry* Exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair* Single versus double layer closure of the uterus* Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum (pelvic and parietal)* Chromic catgut versus Polyglactin-910 for uterine repairThe primary outcome is death or maternal infectious morbidity (one or more of the following: antibiotic use for maternal febrile morbidity during postnatal hospital stay, antibiotic use for endometritis, wound infection or peritonitis) or further operative procedures; or blood transfusion. The sample size required is 15,000 women in total; at least 7,586 women in each comparison. DISCUSSION: Improvements in health from optimising caesarean section techniques are likely to be more significant in developing countries, because the rates of postoperative morbidity in these countries tend to be higher. More women could therefore benefit from improvements in techniques.

trial registrationThe CORONIS Trial is registered in the Current Controlled Trials registry. ISCRTN31089967.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareArgentinaCesarean SectionFemaleGhanaHumansIncidenceIndiaKenyaPakistanPostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyPuerperal DisordersResearch DesignSudanSuture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID18336721
PMCPMC2217555
OpenAlexW57890716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.