ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015
Effect of stage of initial labor dystocia on vaginal birth after cesarean success.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluations Comparing a Trial of Labor with an Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2017Pooled it
- Predicting vaginal birth after previous cesarean: Using machine-learning models and a population-based cohort in Sweden.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2021Article
- Factors obstetricians, family physicians and midwives consider when counselling women about a trial of labour after caesarean and planned repeat caesarean: a qualitative descriptive study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Success of trial of labor in women with a history of previous cesarean section for failed labor induction or labor dystocia: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study was to examine whether the stage of labor dystocia causing a primary cesarean delivery (CD) affects a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) success. STUDY
designThis was a retrospective cohort study of women who had primary CD of singleton pregnancies for first- or second-stage labor dystocia and attempted TOLAC at a single hospital between 2002 and 2014. We compared TOLAC success rates between women whose primary CD was for first- vs second-stage labor dystocia and investigated whether the effect of prior dystocia stage on TOLAC success was modified by previous vaginal delivery (VD).
resultsA total of 238 women were included; nearly half (49%) achieved vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Women with a history of second-stage labor dystocia were more likely to have VBAC compared with those with first-stage dystocia, although this trend was not statistically significant among the general population (55% vs 45%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.4, 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.5]). However, among women without a prior VD, those with a history of second-stage dystocia did have statistically higher odds of achieving VBAC than those with prior first-stage dystocia (54% vs 38%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.8 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.3], P for interaction = .043).
conclusionNearly half of women with a history of primary CD for labor dystocia will achieve VBAC. Women with a history of second-stage labor dystocia have a slightly higher VBAC rate, seen to a statistically significant degree in those without a history of prior VD. TOLAC should be offered to all eligible women and should not be discouraged in women with a prior second-stage arrest.
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.