Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23372739›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Caesarean delivery and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sinéad M O'Neill, Patricia M Kearney, Louise C Kenny, Ali S Khashan, Tine B Henriksen, Jennifer E Lutomski, Richard A Greene

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Caesarean Section--A Density-Equalizing Mapping Study to Depict Its Global Research Architecture.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Support for mothers, fathers and families after perinatal death.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Risk of stillbirth among Zambian women with a prior cesarean delivery.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sinéad M O'NeillNational Perinatal Epidemiology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. sinead.oneill@ucc.ie
Patricia M Kearney
Louise C Kenny
Ali S Khashan
Tine B Henriksen
Jennifer E Lutomski
Richard A Greene
Cork University Hospital · IEAarhus University Hospital · DKUniversity College Cork · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the risk of stillbirth and miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy in women with a previous caesarean or vaginal delivery.

designSystematic review of the published literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge from 1945 until November 11(th) 2011, using a detailed search-strategy and cross-checking of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies examining the association between previous caesarean section and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage risk. Two assessors screened titles to identify eligible studies, using a standardised data abstraction form and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 11 articles were included for stillbirth, totalling 1,961,829 pregnancies and 7,308 events. Eight eligible articles were included for miscarriage, totalling 147,017 pregnancies and 12,682 events. Pooled estimates across the stillbirth studies were obtained using random-effect models. Among women with a previous caesarean an increase in odds of 1.23 [95% CI 1.08, 1.40] for stillbirth was yielded. Subgroup analyses including unexplained stillbirths yielded an OR of 1.47 [95% CI 1.20, 1.80], an OR of 2.11 [95% CI 1.16, 3.84] for explained stillbirths and an OR of 1.27 [95% CI 0.95, 1.70] for antepartum stillbirths. Only one study reported adjusted estimates in the miscarriage review, therefore results are presented individually.

conclusionsGiven the recent revision of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE), providing women the right to request a caesarean, it is essential to establish whether mode of delivery has an association with subsequent risk of stillbirth or miscarriage. Overall, compared to vaginal delivery, the pooled estimates suggest that caesarean delivery may increase the risk of stillbirth by 23%. Results for the miscarriage review were inconsistent and lack of adjustment for confounding was a major limitation. Higher methodological quality research is required to reliably assess the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousAdultCase-Control StudiesCesarean SectionCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, BibliographicFemaleHumansLikelihood FunctionsMiddle AgedPregnancyRisk FactorsStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID23372739
PMCPMC3553078
OpenAlexW2170216098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.