ArticleBMJ open2017
Optimal timing for elective caesarean delivery in a Chinese population: a large hospital-based retrospective cohort study in Shanghai.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of delayed cord clamping on respiratory distress in late preterm and early term infants in elective cesarean section: a single centre, phase Ⅲ, randomised controlled trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Optimal Timing for Elective Cesarean Deliveries: Insights from a Comparative Study at 38- or 39-Weeks Gestation : Elective Cesarean Delivery at 38 vs 39 Weeks.Galen medical journal · 2025Article
- Timing of term elective cesarean section and adverse neonatal outcomes: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the relationship between the timing of antepartum elective caesarean delivery (CD) at term and perinatal outcomes in a Chinese population.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of mode of delivery at a large obstetric centre in Shanghai, China between 2007 and 2014. Eligibility criteria included: term nulliparous women with a singleton gestation undergoing antepartum elective CD.
resultsThere were 19 939 women delivered by antepartum CD without indications, with 5.9% performed at 37-37 6/7 weeks, 36.2% at 38-38 6/7 weeks, 38.4% at 39-39 6/7 weeks, 15.4% at 40-40 6/7 weeks, 4.0% at ≥41 weeks. As compared with births at 39-39 6/7 weeks, births at 37 weeks were associated with an increased odds of neonatal respiratory disease (adjusted odds ratian(aOR): 4.82; 95% CI 3.35 to 6.94), neonatal infection (aOR: 3.68; 95% CI 1.80 to 7.52), hypoglycaemia (aOR: 3.85; 95%CI 2.29 to 6.48), hyperbilirubinaemia (aOR: 3.50; 95%CI 2.12 to 5.68), neonatal intensive care admission (aOR: 3.73; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.89) and prolonged hospitalisation (aOR: 7.51; 95% CI 5.10 to 11.07). Births at 38 weeks, 40 weeks or ≥41 weeks were also associated with an increased odds of neonatal respiratory disease with corresponding aORs (95% CI) of 2.26 (1.71 to 3.00), 1.97 (1.33 to 2.94) and 2.91 (1.80 to 4.70), respectively.
conclusionFor women undergoing elective CD, neonatal outcome data suggest that delivery at 39-39 6/7 complete weeks is optimal timing in a Chinese population.
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.