ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2016
Variation in primary cesarean delivery rates by individual physician within a single-hospital laborist model.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Work Experience and Attitudes About Birth in Relation to Nurses' Cesarean Rates for Women With Low-Risk Pregnancies.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2025Article
- Application of a specific clinical pathway can affect the choice of trial of labor in patients with a history of cesarean delivery.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Observational
- Hospital-level variation in racial disparities in low-risk nulliparous cesarean delivery rates.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2023Article
- Cesarean delivery on maternal request and its influencing factors in Chongqing, China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Cesarean overuse and the culture of care.Health services research · 2019Article
- Do provider birth attitudes influence cesarean delivery rate: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaborist practice models are associated with lower rates of cesarean delivery than individual private practice models in several studies; however, this effect is not uniform. Further exploration of laborist models may help us better understand the observed decrease in rates of cesarean delivery in some hospitals that implement a laborist model.
objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the degree of variation in rates of primary cesarean delivery by individual laborists within a single institution that uses a laborist model. In addition, we sought to evaluate whether differences in rates of cesarean delivery resulted in different maternal or short-term neonatal outcomes. STUDY
designAt this teaching institution, one laborist (either a generalist or maternal-fetal medicine attending physician) is directly responsible for labor and delivery management during each shift. No patients are followed in a private practice model nor are physicians incentivized to perform deliveries. We retrospectively identified all laborists who delivered nulliparous, term women with cephalic singletons at this institution from 2007 to 2014. Overall and individual primary cesarean delivery rates were reported as percentages with exact Pearson 95% confidence intervals. Laborists were grouped by tertile as having low, medium, or high rates of cesarean delivery. Characteristics of the women delivered, indications for cesarean delivery, and short-term neonatal outcomes were compared between these groups. A binomial regression model of cesarean delivery was estimated, where the relative rates of each laborist compared with the lowest-unadjusted laborist rate were calculated; a second model was estimated to adjust for patient-level maternal characteristics.
resultsTwenty laborists delivered 2224 nulliparous, term women with cephalic singletons. The overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.1% (95% confidence interval 21.4-26.8). In an unadjusted binomial model, the overall effect of individual laborist was significant (P < .001), and a 2.9-fold (1.5-5.4, P = .001) variation between the cesarean delivery rates of the greatest (35.9%) and lowest (12.5%) physicians was observed. When adjusted for hypertensive disease, gestational age at delivery, race, and maternal age, the physician effect remained overall significant (P = .0265) with the difference between physicians expanding to 3.58 (1.72-7.47, P <. 001). Between groups of laborists with low, medium, and high rates of cesarean delivery, patient demographics and clinical characteristics of the population managed were clinically similar and not different statistically. The primary indication for cesarean delivery did not differ between groups. Similarly there were no differences in short-term neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores, arterial cord blood pH, or the incidence of neonatal encephalopathy.
conclusionThe 3-fold variation in cesarean delivery rates between laborists at the same institution without observed differences in patient characteristics or short-term neonatal outcomes draws attention to the impact of individual physician decision-making on cesarean delivery rates even within a laborist care model. Further exploration of the role of individual physician decision-making on cesarean rates may help to better elucidate the effect of the laborist model.
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.