Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29281645›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Rates, indications, and outcomes of caesarean section deliveries: A comparison of tribal and non-tribal women in Gujarat, India.

Gayatri Desai, Ankit Anand, Dhiren Modi, Shobha Shah, Kalpana Shah, Ajay Shah, Shrey Desai, Pankaj Shah

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Gayatri DesaiKasturba Maternity Hospital (KMH), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Ankit AnandCommunity Health Project (CHP), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2454-0696
Dhiren ModiCommunity Health Project (CHP), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Shobha ShahWomen's Health and Training Center, SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Kalpana ShahKasturba Maternity Hospital (KMH), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Ajay ShahKasturba Maternity Hospital (KMH), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Shrey DesaiCommunity Health Project (CHP), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.
Pankaj ShahKasturba Maternity Hospital (KMH), SEWA Rural, Bharuch, Gujarat, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEven though the caesarean section is an essential component of comprehensive obstetric and newborn care for reducing maternal and neonatal mortality, there is a lack of data regarding caesarean section rates, its determinants and health outcomes among tribal communities in India.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to estimate and compare rates, determinants, indications and outcomes of caesarean section. The article provides an assessment on how the inequitable utilization can be addressed in a community-based hospital in tribal areas of Gujarat, India.

methodProspectively collected data of deliveries (N = 19923) from April 2010 to March 2016 in Kasturba Maternity Hospital was used. The odds ratio of caesarean section was estimated for tribal and non-tribal women. Decomposition analysis was done to decompose the differences in the caesarean section rates between tribal and non-tribal women.

resultsThe caesarean section rate was significantly lower among tribal compared to the non-tribal women (9.4% vs 15.6%, p-value < 0.01) respectively. The 60% of the differences in the rates of caesarean section between tribal and non-tribal women were unexplained. Within the explained variation, the previous caesarean accounted for 96% (p-value < 0.01) of the variation. Age of the mother, parity, previous caesarean and distance from the hospital were some of the important determinants of caesarean section rates. The most common indications of caesarean section were foetal distress (31.2%), previous caesarean section (23.9%), breech (16%) and prolonged labour (11.2%). There was no difference in case fatality rate (1.3% vs 1.4%, p-value = 0.90) and incidence of birth asphyxia (0.3% vs 0.6%, p-value = 0.26) comparing the tribal and non-tribal women.

conclusionSimilar to the prior evidences, we found higher caesarean rates among non-tribal compare to tribal women. However, the adverse outcomes were similar between tribal and non-tribal women for caesarean section deliveries.

Indexed as

EthnicityAdolescentAdultCesarean SectionFemaleHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornPregnancyProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29281645
PMCPMC5744934

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.