ArticleInternational journal of women's health2013
Pregnancy outcomes associated with Cesarean deliveries in Peruvian public health facilities.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of spontaneous vaginal delivery vs elective cesarean delivery for maternal outcomes in Colombia.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
- An increase in cesarean section rate during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Iran.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Comparative risks and predictors of preeclamptic pregnancy in the Eastern, Western and developing world.Biochemical pharmacology · 2020Review
- Trends in the Mode of Delivery of Pregnant Women in Rural Guatemala from a Quality Improvement Database.Maternal and child health journal · 2019Article
- Pregnancy-specific anxiety and elective cesarean section in primiparas: A cohort study in China.PloS one · 2019Article
- Determinants and materno-fetal outcomes related to cesarean section delivery in private and public hospitals in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Caesarean Section in Peru: Analysis of Trends Using the Robson Classification System.PloS one · 2016Article
- [Cesarean section in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo I: frequency, indications and maternal and perinatal mortality].The Pan African medical journalArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A continuous rise in the rate of cesarean deliveries has been reported in many countries over recent decades. This trend has prompted the emergence of a debate on the risks and benefits associated with cesarean section. The present study was designed to estimate cesarean section rates over time during the period between 2000 and 2010 in Peru and to present outcomes for each mode of delivery. This is a secondary analysis of a large database obtained from the Perinatal Information System, which includes 570,997 pregnant women and their babies from 43 Peruvian public health facilities in three geographical regions: coast, highlands, and jungle. Over 10 years, 558,901 women delivered 563,668 infants weighing at least 500 g. The cesarean section rate increased from 25.5% in 2000 to 29.9% in 2010 (26.9% average; P < 0.01). The rate of stillbirths was lower with cesarean than vaginal deliveries (P < 0.01). On the other hand, and as expected, the rates for preterm births, twin pregnancies, and preeclampsia were higher in women who delivered by cesarean section (P < 0.01). More importantly, the rate of maternal mortality was 5.5 times higher in the cesarean section group than in the vaginal delivery group. Data suggest that cesarean sections are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
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.