Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27398224›Full record

ReviewMaternal health, neonatology and perinatology2016

Cesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa.

Margo S Harrison, Robert L Goldenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Margo S HarrisonColumbia University Medical Center, 622 W 168th St, PH16, New York, NY 10032 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2940-2241
Robert L GoldenbergColumbia University Medical Center, 622 W 168th St, PH16, New York, NY 10032 USA.

Funding

Columbia University/Aga Khan University Global Network Research UnitU10HD078438 · NICHD · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GOLDENBERG, ROBERT L · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD078438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cesarean section is an essential maternal healthcare service. Its role in labor and delivery care in low- and middle-income countries is complex; in many low-resource settings it is underutilized in the most needy of populations and overused by the less needy, without clear methods to ensure that universal access is available. Additionally, even if universal access were available, it is not evident that these countries would have the capacity or the finances to appropriate meet demand for the procedure, or that patients would want to utilize the care. This review summarizes the literature and illustrates the complicated relationship that cesarean section, which is rapidly on the rise around the world, has with individuals, communities, and nations in sub-Saharan Africa.

Indexed as

Cesarean sectionEpidemiologyLow- and middle-income countriesSub-Saharan AfricaTrial of labor after cesarean sectionVaginal birth after cesarean section

Identifiers

PMID27398224
PMCPMC4937522

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.