Trial reportLancet (London, England)2016
Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-versus double-layer uterine closure at the time of cesarean delivery and risk of uterine scar niche: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Pooled it
- Patients and investigators prefer measures of absolute risk in subgroups for pragmatic randomized trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Pooled it
- Cesarean scar dehiscence in early puerperium and influence of barbed suture: tridimensional ultrasound evaluation in a randomized clinical study.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Trial
- Evaluation of single-layer versus double-layer suturing of low transverse uterine incisions in cesarean section and follow-up of scars by ultrasound: a prospective randomized controlled study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Trial
- Current practices in caesarean section training: A cross-sectional study comparing high- and low-middle-income countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Uterine closure after cesarean delivery: surgical technique, biological rationale, and clinical implications.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Review
- 'Making the Implicit Explicit': The Recommended Steps of a Caesarean Section, a Delphi Study Among South African Experts.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
- Contemporary global practice in dissection and closure techniques for lower abdominal transverse incisions: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Prediction of vesicouterine adhesions by transvaginal sonographic sliding sign technique: validation study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025Observational
- Incisional Small-Bowel Strangulation after a Caesarean Section: A Case Report.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Exploring functional metabolites and proteomics biomarkers in late-preterm and natural-born pigs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Impact of Intraoperative Factors on the Development of Postpartum Septic Complications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Exploring the impact of indication on variation in rates of intrapartum caesarean section in six Palestinian hospitals: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Incidence and risk factors for surgical wound complications in women with body mass index >30 kg/mAJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Intra-abdominal Adhesions among Patients Undergoing Repeat Caesarean Section in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2022Article
- Surgical benefits of bidirectional knotless barbed sutures over conventional sutures for uterine repair during cesarean section-A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Single- Versus Double-Layer Uterine Closure After Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2021Review
- The Case for Standardizing Cesarean Delivery Technique: Seeing the Forest for the Trees.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe CORONIS trial reported differences in short-term maternal morbidity when comparing five pairs of alternative surgical techniques for caesarean section. Here we report outcomes at 3 years follow-up.
methodsThe CORONIS trial was a pragmatic international 2 × 2 × 2 × 2× 2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial done at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. In this follow-up study, we compared outcomes at 3 years following blunt versus sharp abdominal entry, exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair, single versus double layer closure of the uterus, closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum, and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Outcomes included pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia; hysterectomy and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. Outcomes were assessed masked to the original trial allocation. This trial is registered with the Current Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31089967.
findingsBetween Sept 1, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014, 13,153 (84%) women were followed-up for a mean duration of 3·8 years (SD 0·86). For blunt versus sharp abdominal entry there was no evidence of a difference in risk of abdominal hernias (adjusted RR 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·11). We also recorded no evidence of a difference in risk of death or serious morbidity of the children born at the time of trial entry (0·99, 0·83-1·17). For exteriorisation of the uterus versus intra-abdominal repair there was no evidence of a difference in risk of infertility (0·91, 0·71-1·18) or of ectopic pregnancy (0·50, 0·15-1·66). For single versus double layer closure of the uterus there was no evidence of a difference in maternal death (0·78, 0·46-1·32) or a composite of pregnancy complications (1·20, 0·75-1·90). For closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum there was no evidence of a difference in any outcomes relating to symptoms associated with pelvic adhesions such as infertility (0·80, 0·61-1·06). For chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures there was no evidence of a difference in the main comparisons for adverse pregnancy outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture (3·05, 0·32-29·29). Overall, severe adverse outcomes were uncommon in these settings.
interpretationAlthough our study was not powered to detect modest differences in rare but serious events, there was no evidence to favour one technique over another. Other considerations will probably affect clinical practice, such as the time and cost saving of different approaches.
fundingUK Medical Research Council and the Department for International Development.
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.