Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25333943›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2014

Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: analyses of a National US Hospital Discharge Database.

Katy B Kozhimannil, Mariana C Arcaya, S V Subramanian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Cardiovascular-Related Maternal Mortality.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluating the impact of a standardized induction protocol to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes: a prospective cohort study.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katy B KozhimannilDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Mariana C ArcayaDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
S V SubramanianDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Harvard University · USMinnesota Department of Health · US

Funding

Univ of Minnesota Buidling Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's HealthK12HD055887 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI ALLEN, SHARON S, BERGE, JERICA M · 2007 to 2023
$8.6M
NICHD NIH HHS 5K12HD055887NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD055887
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCesarean delivery is the most common inpatient surgery in the United States, where 1.3 million cesarean sections occur annually, and rates vary widely by hospital. Identifying sources of variation in cesarean use is crucial to improving the consistency and quality of obstetric care. We used hospital discharge records to examine the extent to which variability in the likelihood of cesarean section across US hospitals was attributable to individual women's clinical diagnoses. METHODS AND

findingsUsing data from the 2009 and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project--a 20% sample of US hospitals--we analyzed data for 1,475,457 births in 1,373 hospitals. We fitted multilevel logistic regression models (patients nested in hospitals). The outcome was cesarean (versus vaginal) delivery. Covariates included diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy, hypertension in pregnancy, hemorrhage during pregnancy or placental complications, fetal distress, and fetal disproportion or obstructed labor; maternal age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status; and hospital size and location/teaching status. The cesarean section prevalence was 22.0% (95% confidence interval 22.0% to 22.1%) among women with no prior cesareans. In unadjusted models, the between-hospital variation in the individual risk of primary cesarean section was 0.14 (95% credible interval 0.12 to 0.15). The difference in the probability of having a cesarean delivery between hospitals was 25 percentage points. Hospital variability did not decrease after adjusting for patient diagnoses, socio-demographics, and hospital characteristics (0.16 [95% credible interval 0.14 to 0.18]). A limitation is that these data, while nationally representative, did not contain information on parity or gestational age.

conclusionsVariability across hospitals in the individual risk of cesarean section is not decreased by accounting for differences in maternal diagnoses. These findings highlight the need for more comprehensive or linked data including parity and gestational age as well as examination of other factors-such as hospital policies, practices, and culture--in determining cesarean section use. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHospitalsHumansObstetric Labor ComplicationsPregnancyRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID25333943
PMCPMC4205118
OpenAlexW2169733571

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.