ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2011
Understanding rising caesarean section trends: relevance of inductions and prelabour obstetric interventions at term.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Birth by caesarean section and semen quality in adulthood: a Danish population-based cohort study.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- What Are Optimal Cesarean Section Rates in the U.S. and How Do We Get There? A Review of Evidence-Based Recommendations and Interventions.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSingle center 10-years audit on the relation between labour ward management and caesarean section rate, with special emphasis on the impact of reduced induction rate and the use of strict criteria for the diagnosis of onset of spontaneous labour and the indication for induction of labour.
methodsRetrospective classification of all deliveries between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010 in Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk Belgium, into the 10- group classification according to Robson. Numbers and rate of caesarean sections were defined for primiparous and multiparous women in spontaneous labour (groups 1 and 3 respectively), after induced labour (groups 2 and 4 respectively), with caesarean scar uterus (group 5) or with other gestational complications (groups 6 to 10). For these groups, a 10-years evolution was evaluated.
resultsIn a total of 19.675 deliveries, the overall caesarean section rate increased from 20% (380/1937) in 2001 to 25% (534/2121) in 2007 (p < 0.001), and decreased again to 20% in 2010 (415/2068) (p < 0.001). The increase of caesarean sections before 2007 was associated with an increase of inductions in singleton cephalic pregnancies at term from 28.5% (410/1437) in 2003 to 35.9% (551/1536) in 2006 (p < 0.001). The decrease of caesarean sections after 2007 occurred both in induced labours, as a direct consequence of rationalised reduction of induction rate, and in spontaneous labours, following introduction of strict criteria for diagnosis of labour. Despite a similar caesarean section rate of 20% in 2001 and 2010, the 6.6% (136/2068) repeat caesarean section rate in 2010 was higher than 4.2% (81/1937) in 2001 (p = 0.001).
conclusionThis single centre audit illustrates that increased induction rate is associated with increased caesarean section rate. This evolution can be reverted through a rationalised management aiming for reduction of induced labours and improved diagnosis of labour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24753879PMC3987471W32236798What 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.