Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28602031›Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2018

Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review.

A A Boatin, F Cullinane, M R Torloni, A P Betrán

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03794063 (Analysis of Caesarean Section Rate According to the 10 Group Robson Classification; A Multicenter Prospective Study in Egypt), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT03794063 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Analysis of Caesarean Section Rate According to the 10 Group Robson Classification; A Multicenter Prospective Study in Egypt

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorEgyptian Society of Royal College of Obstetricians and GynaecologistsRan2019 to 2019Enrolled3,000ConditionsCaesarean Section RateArmsRobson 10 group classification system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. A cross-sectional study of caesarean deliveries performed by medical doctors and associate clinicians in nine district and regional hospitals in Sierra Leone using the Robson Ten Group Classification System.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Classification of caesarean sections by 10 Robson groups in a second level hospital].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023
    Observational
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

A A BoatinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
F CullinaneMaternity Services, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Vic., Australia.
M R TorloniEvidence Based Healthcare Post Graduate Program, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paolo, Brazil.
A P BetránDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, HRP - UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland.
Harvard University · USRoyal Women's Hospital · AUUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn most regions worldwide, caesarean section (CS) rates are increasing. In these settings, new strategies are needed to reduce CS rates.

objectivesTo identify, critically appraise and synthesise studies using the Robson classification as a system to categorise and analyse data in clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS were searched from 2001 to 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting use of the Robson classification to categorise and analyse data in clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates. DATA COLLECTION: Data on study design, interventions used, CS rates, and perinatal outcomes were extracted.

resultsOf 385 citations, 30 were assessed for full text review and six studies, conducted in Brazil, Chile, Italy and Sweden, were included. All studies measured initial CS rates, provided feedback and monitored performance using the Robson classification. In two studies, the audit cycle consisted exclusively of feedback using the Robson classification; the other four used audit and feedback as part of a multifaceted intervention. Baseline CS rates ranged from 20 to 36.8%; after the intervention, CS rates ranged from 3.1 to 21.2%. No studies were randomised or controlled and all had a high risk of bias.

conclusionWe identified six studies using the Robson classification within clinical audit cycles to reduce CS rates. All six report reductions in CS rates; however, results should be interpreted with caution because of limited methodological quality. Future trials are needed to evaluate the role of the Robson classification within audit cycles aimed at reducing CS rates. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Use of the Robson classification in clinical audit cycles to reduce caesarean rates.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionFeedbackFemaleHumansMedical AuditPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsQuality Indicators, Health CareAudit and feedbackcaesarean sectionclinical audit cycleRobson classificationsystematic reviewten-group classification

Identifiers

PMID28602031
PMCPMC5763379
OpenAlexW2622347409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.