SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Cesarean delivery for the prevention of anal incontinence.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cesarean delivery to prevent anal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Pooled it
- Age-related long-term effects of vaginal delivery, pregnancy, and sphincter injury on anal continence: A matched cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Neurodevelopment of Children Born with Forceps Delivery-A Single Tertiary Clinic Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Antenatal, Intrapartum and Postpartum Interventions for Preventing Postpartum Urinary and Faecal Incontinence: An Umbrella Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Risk Factors for Anal Continence Impairment Following a Second Delivery after a First Traumatic Delivery: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Risk factors accounting for anal incontinence during the first year after vaginal delivery-A case control study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- An empirical evaluation of the impact scenario of pooling bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Pelvic floor: vaginal or caesarean delivery? A review of systematic reviews.International urogynecology journal · 2021Review
- Cross-sectional study of early postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction and related bother in primiparous women 6-10 weeks postpartum.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- What Is Fecal Incontinence That Urologists Need to Know?International neurourology journal · 2021Article
- Effects of delivery mode and age on motor unit properties of the external anal sphincter in women.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Cell-based secondary prevention of childbirth-induced pelvic floor trauma.Nature reviews. Urology · 2017Review
- Functional Anorectal Disorders.Gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Evidence-Based Update on Treatments of Fecal Incontinence in Women.Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America · 2016Review
- Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Review
- Dutch evidence statement for pelvic physical therapy in patients with anal incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2015Review
- Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women.Women's health (London, England) · 2015Review
- Faecal incontinence 20 years after one birth: a comparison between vaginal delivery and caesarean section.International urogynecology journal · 2014Article
- An Evidence-Based Approach to the Evaluation, Diagnostic Assessment and Treatment of Fecal Incontinence in Women.Current obstetrics and gynecology reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean delivery (CD) is a common form of delivery of a baby, rising in frequency. One reason for its performance is to preserve maternal pelvic floor function, part of which is anal continence.
objectivesTo assess the ability of CD in comparison to vaginal delivery (VD) to preserve anal continence in a systematic review SEARCH STRATEGY: Search terms include: "Caesarean section, Cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, incontinence and randomised". PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) were searched from their inception through July, 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Both randomised and non-randomised studies that allowed comparisons of post partum anal continence (both fecal and flatus) in women who had had babies delivered by either CD or VD were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Mode of delivery, and when possible mode of all previous deliveries prior to the index pregnancy were extracted, as well as assessment of continence post partum of both faeces and flatus. In Non-RCTs, available adjusted odds ratios were the primary end point sought. Incontinence of flatus is reported as a separate outcome. Summary odds ratios are not presented as no study was analysed as a randomised controlled trial. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) are presented, that is, the number of CDs needed to be performed to prevent a single case of fecal or flatus incontinence, for each individual study. Quality criteria were developed, selecting studies that allowed maternal age adjustment, studies that allowed a sufficient time after the birth of the baby for continence assessment and studies in which mode of delivery of prior pregnancies was known. Subgroup analyses were done selecting studies meeting all quality criteria and in comparisons of elective versus emergency CD, elective CD versus VD and nulliparous women versus those delivered by VD or CD, in each case again, not calculating a summary risk statistic. MAIN
resultsTwentyone reports have been found eligible for inclusion in the review, encompassing 31,698 women having had 6,028 CDs and 25,170 VDs as the index event prior to anal continence assessment . Only one report randomised women (with breech presentation) to CD or VD, but because of extensive crossing over, 52.1%, after randomisation, it was analysed along with the other 20 studies as treated, i.e. as a non-randomised trial. Only one of these reports demonstrated a significant benefit of CD in the preservation of anal continence, a report in which incontinence incidence was extremely high, 39% in CD and 48% in VD, questioning, relative to other reports, the timing and nature of continence assessment. The greater the quality of the report, the closer its Odds ratio approached 1.0. There was no difference in continence preservation in women have emergency versus elective CD. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWithout demonstrable benefit, preservation of anal continence should not be used as a criterion for choosing elective primary CD. The strength of this conclusion would be greatly strengthened if there were studies that randomised women with average risk pregnancies to CD versus VD.
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.