ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
Trial of labour after caesarean section and the risk of neonatal and infant death: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section: A structured review of the evidence on the associated outcomes for women and their children in high-income setting.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaesarean section (CS) rates are increasing worldwide and as a result repeat CS is common. The optimal mode of delivery in women with one previous CS is widely debated and the risks to the infant are understudied. The aim of the current study was to evaluate if women with a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) had an increased odds of neonatal and infant death compared to women with an elective repeat CS (ERCS).
methodsA population register-based cohort study was conducted in Denmark between 1982 and 2010. All women with two deliveries [in which the first was a CS, and the second was an uncomplicated, term delivery (n = 61,626)] were included in the study. Logistic regression models were used to report adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the odds of death according to mode of delivery. The main outcome measures were neonatal death (early and late) and infant death.
resultsWomen with a TOLAC had an increased odds of neonatal death (AOR 1 · 87, 95% CI 1 · 12 to 3 · 12) due to an increased risk of early neonatal death (AOR 2 · 06, 95% CI 1 · 19 to 3 · 56) and no effect on late neonatal death (AOR 0 · 97, 95% CI 0 · 22 to 4 · 32), or infant death (AOR 1 · 12, 95% CI 0 · 79 to 1 · 59) when compared to the reference group of women with an ERCS. There was evidence of a cohort effect as the increased odds of neonatal death (AOR 3 · 89, 95% CI 1 · 33 to 11 · 39) was most significant in the earlier years (1982-1991) and gradually disappeared (AOR 1 · 01, 95% CI 0 · 44 to 2 · 31) in the later years (2002-2010).
conclusionsAlthough an increased risk of neonatal death was found in women with a TOLAC, there was evidence of a cohort effect, which showed this increased odds disappearing over time. Advances in modern healthcare including improved monitoring and earlier detection of underlying pregnancy complications may explain the findings.
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.