ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2013
Obstetrical interventions for term first deliveries in the US.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of induction of labor prior to post-term in low-risk pregnancies: a systematic review.JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports · 2019Pooled it
- The Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Cone Conundrum: The Role of Cumulative Excised Depth in Predicting Preterm Birth.AJP reports · 2022Article
- A Peripheral Immune Signature of Labor Induction.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- Oregon's Hard-Stop Policy Limiting Elective Early-Term Deliveries: Association With Obstetric Procedure Use and Health Outcomes.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- Planned Out-of-Hospital Birth and Birth Outcomes.The New England journal of medicine · 2015Article
- The association between temporal changes in the use of obstetrical intervention and small-for-gestational age live births.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLabour induction and caesarean are increasingly done without clinical indication. However, little is known about the prevalence of such interventions, or the characteristics of women who receive them. We used the 2003 revision of the US birth certificates to summarise recorded interventions and to characterise maternal profiles associated with such interventions.
methodsWe carried out a retrospective study of 2.35 million primiparous women delivering singleton live births at 37-44 weeks in the US from 2005 to 2008. We used the 2003 revision of the birth certificate to define delivery categories: 'indicated' were those with induced labour or pre-labour caesarean for hypertension, diabetes, chorioamnionitis, failed cephalic version at ≥40 weeks, growth restriction (<3rd centile), or post-term (≥42 weeks); those with pre-labour caesarean with breech at ≥39 weeks; or those with caesarean with labour lasting ≥12 h, failed trial of labour, vacuum/forceps extraction, or fetal intolerance to labour. Remaining deliveries with induction/caesarean were classified as 'non-indicated' and all other deliveries 'spontaneous'.
resultsHalf of all term first births (50%) were delivered after intervention, and half of interventions were non-indicated (26% of all deliveries). Women with interventions were more likely to deliver on a weekday. Non-indicated interventions were more common among socially advantaged women.
conclusionsNearly a quarter of US term first deliveries had an indicated intervention, and another quarter received intervention without a recorded clinical indication. Both numbers are probably underestimates.
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.