ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2017
[Labour in women with scarred uterus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: trial of scar and factors influencing the outcome].
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur study aims to identify risks factors associated with failed trial of scar and to set a predictive score of labour in women with scarred uterus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter cross-sectional analytic study of patients with scarred uterus in four maternity units in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 1 January to 31 December 2013. Logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with failed trial of scar. We set a predictive score based on this model in order to predict trial of scar failure in maternity units in the DRC. ROC curve was used to assess the ability of the set score to identify patients at risk for trial of scar failure. The cut off point for the predictive score was determined on the basis of the Youden-index-based optimal sensitivity and specificity. All the tests in our study were carried out by using a significance threshold of α=0.05.
resultsTwo explanatory factors in trial of scar failure were retained. They were the socio-demographic factor (maternal age) and three obstetric factors (fundal height, fetal presentation and premature rupture of membranes). Predictive score was set to predict trial of scar failure. This score was determined based on four elements: maternal age, evaluation of the gestational sac on admission, fundal height and fetal presentation. The minimum score was set at 4 and the maximum score was set at 16. The threshold value was set at 7. A total score greater than or equal to 7 reflects a risk of trial of scar failure.
conclusionWe set a predictive score to predict trial of scar failure. This score was determined based on four elements: maternal age, evaluation of the gestational sac on admission, fundal height and fetal presentation. A total score greater than or equal to 7 reflects a risk of trial of scar failure.
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.