ArticleMonash bioethics review2009
Bioethics and birth: insights on risk decision-making for an elective caesarean after a prior caesarean delivery.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Conflicting attitudes between clinicians and women regarding maternal requested caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Do women prefer caesarean sections? A qualitative evidence synthesis of their views and experiences.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedRay-Barruel, Gillian [added]
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the findings of qualitative research which explored, from the mothers' perspective, the process of decision-making about mode of delivery for a subsequent birth after a previous Caesarean Section. In contradiction to the clinical literature, the majority of mothers in this study were strongly of the opinion that a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) posed a higher risk than an elective caesarean (EC). From the mothers' perspective, risk discussions were primarily valuable for gaining support for their pre-determined choice, rather than obtaining information. The findings posit ethical concerns with regards to informed consent and professional obstetric practice at a time when there is a documented and worrying trend towards an increase in births by caesarean section (CS).
Indexed as
Identifiers
20131527What 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.