Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21678348›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

Suthit Khunpradit, Emma Tavender, Pisake Lumbiganon, Malinee Laopaiboon, Jason Wasiak, Russell L Gruen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Suthit KhunpraditDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lamphun Hospital, 177 Jamthevee Road, Lamphun, Lamphun, Thailand, 51000.
Emma Tavender
Pisake Lumbiganon
Malinee Laopaiboon
Jason Wasiak
Russell L Gruen
Monash University · AUKhon Kaen University · THLampang Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean section rates are steadily increasing globally. The factors contributing to these observed increases are complex. Non-clinical interventions, those applied independent of patient care in a clinical encounter, may have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Specialised Register (29 March 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010); EMBASE (1947 to March 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) with at least two intervention and control sites, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) where the intervention time was clearly defined and there were at least three data points before and three after the intervention. Studies evaluated non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section rates. Participants included pregnant women and their families, healthcare providers who work with expectant mothers, communities and advocacy groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the quality and abstracted data of all eligible studies using a standardised data extraction form, modified from the Cochrane EPOC checklists. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN

resultsWe included 16 studies in this review.Six studies specifically targeted pregnant women. Two RCTs were shown to be effective in reducing caesarean section rates: a nurse-led relaxation training programme for women with a fear or anxiety of childbirth and birth preparation sessions. However, both RCTs were small in size and targeted younger mothers with their first pregnancies. There is insufficient evidence that prenatal education and support programmes, computer patient decision-aids, decision-aid booklets and intensive group therapy are effective.Ten studies targeted health professionals. Three of these studies were effective in reducing caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with mandatory second opinion resulted in a small, statistically significant reduction in total caesarean section rates (adjusted risk difference (RD) -1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -0.1); this reduction was predominately in intrapartum sections. An ITS study of mandatory second opinion and peer review feedback at department meetings found statistically significant results at 48 months for reducing repeat caesarean section rates (change in level was -6.4%; 95% CI -9.7% to -3.1% and change in slope -1.14%; 95% CI -1.9% to -0.3%) but not for total caesarean section rates. A cluster-RCT of guideline implementation with support from local opinion leaders increased the proportion of women with a previous caesarean section being offered a trial of labour (absolute difference 16.8%) and the number who had a vaginal birth (VBAC rates) (absolute difference 13.5%). The P values are, however, not reported due to unit of analysis errors. There was insufficient evidence that audit and feedback, training of public health nurses, insurance reform, external peer review and legislative changes are effective. AUTHORS'

conclusionsImplementation of guidelines with mandatory second opinion can lead to a small reduction in caesarean section rates, predominately in intrapartum sections. Peer review, including pre-caesarean consultation, mandatory secondary opinion and postcaesarean surveillance can lead to a reduction in repeat caesarean section rates. Guidelines disseminated with endorsement and support from local opinion leaders may increase the proportion of women with previous caesarean sections being offered a trial of labour in certain settings. Nurse-led relaxation classes and birth preparation classes may reduce caesarean section rates in low-risk pregnancies.

Indexed as

AnxietyCesarean SectionFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansParturitionPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReferral and ConsultationUnnecessary ProceduresVaginal Birth after Cesarean

Identifiers

PMID21678348
OpenAlexW2151199070

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.