Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18646108›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section.

Jodie M Dodd, Elizabeth R Anderson, Simon Gates

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evidence-Based Cesarean Delivery for the Nonobstetrician.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2016
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Uterine closure in cesarean delivery: a new technique.North American journal of medical sciences · 2012
    Article
  14. The use of barbed sutures in obstetrics and gynecology.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2010
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jodie M DoddSchool of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5006. jodie.dodd@adelaide.edu.au
Elizabeth R Anderson
Simon Gates
University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section is a common operation. Techniques vary depending on both the clinical situation and the preferences of the operator.

objectivesTo compare the effects of 1) different types of uterine incision, 2) methods of performing the uterine incision, 3) suture materials and technique of uterine closure (including single versus double layer closure of the uterine incision) on maternal health, infant health, and health care resource use. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing various types and closure of uterine incision during caesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. MAIN

resultsWe identified 30 studies, of which 15 (3972 women) were included. Ten trials compared single layer uterine closure with double layer uterine closure (2531 women), two trials compared blunt with sharp dissection at the time of the uterine incision (1241 women), and two trials compared auto-suture devices with traditional hysterotomy (300 women). Blunt dissection was associated with a reduction in mean blood loss at the time of the procedure when compared with sharp dissection of the uterine incision (one study, 945 women, mean difference (MD) -43.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -66.12 to -19.88). There was no statistically significant difference related to need for blood transfusion (one study, 945 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01). The use of an auto-suture instrument when compared with traditional methods of hysterotomy was associated with no difference in the amount of blood loss during the procedure (one study, 200 women, MD -87.00, 95% CI -175.09 to 1.09), but a statistically significant increase in the duration of the procedure (one study, 197 women, MD 3.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.62). Single layer closure compared with double layer closure was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mean blood loss (three studies, 527 women, MD -70.11, 95% CI -101.61 to -38.60); duration of the operative procedure (four studies, 645 women, MD -7.43, 95% CI -8.41 to -6.46); and presence of postoperative pain (one study, 158 women, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91). AUTHORS'

conclusionsWhile caesarean section is a common procedure performed on women worldwide, there is little information available to inform the most appropriate surgical technique to adopt.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesBlood Loss, SurgicalCesarean SectionDissectionFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuturesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18646108
OpenAlexW4249338220

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.