Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25652550›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review.

Ingela Lundgren, Valerie Smith, Christina Nilsson, Katri Vehvilainen-Julkunen, Jane Nicoletti, Declan Devane, Annette Bernloehr, Evelien van Limbeek, Joan Lalor, Cecily Begley

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Analysis of Cesarean Section Ratios by Robson Classification.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Implementation of guidelines about women with previous cesarean section through educational/motivational interventions.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section (VBAC) Model using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarch Process.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Ingela LundgrenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 457, , SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. ingela.lundgren@gu.se.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. smithv1@tcd.ie.
Christina NilssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 457, , SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. christina.nilsson@gu.se.
Katri Vehvilainen-JulkunenUniversity of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences, POB 1627, Kuopio University Hospital, 70211, Kuopio, Finland. katri.vehvilainenjulkunen@uef.fi.
Jane NicolettiUniversita Degli Studi di Genova, Via Balbi 5, 16126, Genoa, Italy. jnicoletti@libero.it.
Declan DevaneSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, NUI Galway/West North West Hospital Group, University Road, Galway, Ireland. declan.devane@nuigalway.ie.
Annette BernloehrDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Midwifery Research and Education Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. bernloehr.annette@mh-hannover.de.
Evelien van LimbeekDepartment of Midwifery Science, Zuyd University, POB 1256, 6201 BG, Maastricht, The Netherlands. e.vanlimbeek@av-m.nl.
Joan LalorSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. LALORJ1@tcd.ie.
Cecily BegleySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. cbegley@tcd.ie.
Trinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Gothenburg · SEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity Hospital Galway · IEUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIUniversity of Genoa · ITZuyd University of Applied Sciences · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing globally, and repeat CS after a previous CS is a significant contributor to the overall CS rate. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) can be seen as a real and viable option for most women with previous CS. To achieve success, however, women need the support of their clinicians (obstetricians and midwives). The aim of this study was to evaluate clinician-centred interventions designed to increase the rate of VBAC.

methodsThe bibliographic databases of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials, including cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention targeted directly at clinicians aimed at increasing VBAC rates. Included studies were appraised independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted independently by three reviewers. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment tool, 'Effective Public Health Practice Project'. The primary outcome measure was VBAC rates.

results238 citations were screened, 255 were excluded by title and abstract. 11 full-text papers were reviewed; eight were excluded, resulting in three included papers. One study evaluated the effectiveness of antepartum x-ray pelvimetry (XRP) in 306 women with one previous CS. One study evaluated the effects of external peer review on CS birth in 45 hospitals, and the third evaluated opinion leader education and audit and feedback in 16 hospitals. The use of external peer review, audit and feedback had no significant effect on VBAC rates. An educational strategy delivered by an opinion leader significantly increased VBAC rates. The use of XRP significantly increased CS rates.

conclusionsThis systematic review indicates that few studies have evaluated the effects of clinician-centred interventions on VBAC rates, and interventions are of varying types which limited the ability to meta-analyse data. A further limitation is that the included studies were performed during the late 1980s-1990s. An opinion leader educational strategy confers benefit for increasing VBAC rates. This strategy should be further studied in different maternity care settings and with professionals other than physicians only.

Indexed as

Cesarean Section, RepeatVaginal Birth after CesareanAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMidwiferyObstetricsPatient Education as TopicPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25652550
PMCPMC4324420
OpenAlexW2139901916

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.