SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of vaginal delivery following balloon catheter for labor induction in women with one previous cesarean.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Prior caesarean section and likelihood of vaginal birth, 2012-2016, China.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2018Article
- Mode of delivery after a previous cesarean birth, and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- Impact of caesarean section on mode of delivery, pregnancy-induced and pregnancy-associated disorders, and complications in the subsequent pregnancy in Germany.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy there are two options for her care, an elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently any conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
objectivesTo assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth, who require induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (31 October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies for women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section with outcomes in women who planned induction of labour, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: There was no data extraction performed. MAIN
resultsThere were no randomised controlled trials identified. AUTHORS'
conclusionsBoth planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices is drawn from non-randomised studies that are associated with potential bias. Any results and conclusions must therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.
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.