ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2013
First birth Caesarean section and subsequent fertility: a population-based study in the USA, 2000-2008.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2018Pooled it
- From medical necessity to private-sector dominance: a two-decade evolution of caesarean section determinants in Bangladesh (2004-2022).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The effect of previous caesarean delivery on cumulative live birth rate in IVF/ICSI cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Fear of childbirth and psychiatric disorders decrease the likelihood of subsequent births: a retrospective register-based cohort study.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Effect of previous caesarean section on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Influence of Cesarean Section on Postpartum Fertility and Dysmenorrhea: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Japan.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Emotional factors, medical interventions and mode of birth among low-risk primiparous women in Poland.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2023Article
- Child Marriage and Adolescent Motherhood: A Nationwide Vulnerability for Women in Bangladesh.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Delivery mode and future infectious morbidity of the offspring: a sibling analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2020Article
- Association Between Mode of First Delivery and Subsequent Fecundity and Fertility.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Association between first caesarean delivery and adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Brief Report: Cesarean Delivery and Subsequent Fecundability.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2016Article
- Mode of delivery and subsequent fertility.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2014Article
- Prevalence, definition, and etiology of cesarean scar defect and treatment of cesarean scar disorder: A narrative review.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
study questionIs first birth Caesarean delivery associated with a lower likelihood of subsequent childbearing when compared with first birth vaginal delivery? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study of US women whose first delivery was in 2000, those who had a Caesarean delivery were less likely to have a subsequent live birth than those who delivered vaginally. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Some studies have reported lower birth rates subsequent to Caesarean delivery in comparison with vaginal delivery, while other studies have reported no difference. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 52 498 women who had a first singleton live birth in the State of Pennsylvania, USA in 2000 and were followed to the end of 2008 via Pennsylvania birth certificate records to identify subsequent live births during the 8- to 9-year follow-up period. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsBirth certificate records of first singleton births were linked to the hospital discharge data for each mother and newborn, and linked to all birth certificate records for each mother's subsequent deliveries which occurred in 2000 to the end of 2008. Poisson regression models were used to evaluate the association between first birth factors and whether or not there was a subsequent live birth during the follow-up period. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Over an average of 8.5 years of follow-up, 40.2% of women with a Caesarean first birth did not have a subsequent live birth, compared with 33.1% of women with a vaginal first birth (risk ratio (RR): 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.25). Adjustment for the demographic confounders of maternal age, race, education, marital status and health insurance coverage attenuated the RR to 1.16 (95% CI: 1.13-1.19). Specific pregnancy and childbirth-related complications associated with not having a subsequent live birth included diabetes-related disorders, abnormalities of organs and soft tissues of the pelvis, fetal abnormalities, premature or prolonged rupture of membranes, hypertensive disorders, amnionitis, fetal distress and other maternal health problems. However, adjustment for the pregnancy and childbirth complications had little effect on the RR of not having a subsequent live birth (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.11-1.19). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were unable to distinguish between women who did not have a subsequent live birth and those who moved out of the state, which may have introduced a selection bias if those who had Caesarean births were more likely to emigrate than those who delivered vaginally. In addition we were unable to measure pre-pregnancy body mass index, weight gain during pregnancy and prior infertility, which would have been helpful in our efforts to reduce selection bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe results of this study provide further corroboration of previous studies that have reported reduced fertility subsequent to Caesarean section in comparison with vaginal delivery. STUDY FUNDING/POTENTIAL COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, R01-HD052990). No competing interests are declared.
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.