Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24586295›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Mode of delivery and offspring body mass index, overweight and obesity in adult life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karthik Darmasseelane, Matthew J Hyde, Shalini Santhakumaran, Chris Gale, Neena Modi

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisPersonal NarrativeSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 86 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
28.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Caesarean section and obesity in young adult offspring: Update of a systematic review with meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. The role of gut micorbiome in obesity and diabetes.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Health outcomes following caesarean birth- An observational study of twins discordant for mode of delivery.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karthik DarmasseelaneSection of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital campus, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew J HydeSection of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital campus, London, United Kingdom.
Shalini SanthakumaranSection of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital campus, London, United Kingdom.
Chris GaleSection of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital campus, London, United Kingdom.
Neena ModiSection of Neonatal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital campus, London, United Kingdom.
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that mode of delivery, a potentially powerful influence upon long-term health, may affect later life body mass index (BMI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of Caesarean section (CS) and vaginal delivery (VD) on offspring BMI, overweight (BMI>25) and obesity (BMI>30) in adulthood. Secondary outcomes were subgroup analyses by gender and type of CS (in-labour/emergency, pre-labour/elective).

methodsUsing a predefined search strategy, Pubmed, Google Scholar and Web of Science were searched for any article published before 31(st) March 2012, along with references of any studies deemed relevant. Studies were selected if they reported birth characteristics and long-term offspring follow-up into adulthood. Aggregate data from relevant studies were extracted onto a pre-piloted data table. A random-effects meta-analysis was carried out in RevMan5. Results are illustrated using forest plots and funnel plots, and presented as mean differences or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.

resultsThirty-five studies were identified through the search, and 15 studies with a combined population of 163,796 [corrected] were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Comparing all CS to VD in pooled-gender unadjusted analyses, mean BMI difference was 0·44 kg·m(-2) (0·17, 0·72; p = 0·002), OR for incidence of overweight was 1·26 (1·16, 1·38; p<0·00001) and OR for incidence of obesity was 1·22 (1·05, 1·42; p = 0·01). Heterogeneity was low in all primary analyses. Similar results were found in gender-specific subgroup analyses. Subgroup analyses comparing type of CS to VD showed no significant impact on any outcome.

conclusionsThere is a strong association between CS and increased offspring BMI, overweight and obesity in adulthood. Given the rising CS rate worldwide there is a need to determine whether this is causal, or reflective of confounding influences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: An a priori protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42011001851).

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexDelivery, ObstetricObesityOverweightAdultHumansInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID24586295
PMCPMC3935836
OpenAlexW2040795654

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.