ArticleSingapore medical journal2019
Comparison of Caesarean sections and instrumental deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a retrospective review.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inconsistent definitions of prolonged labor in international literature: a scoping review.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
- Trends and Determinants of Operative Vaginal Delivery at Two Academic Hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa 2005-2019.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- CRAFT (Cerclage after full dilatation caesarean section): protocol of a mixed methods study investigating the role of previous in-labour caesarean section in preterm birth risk.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Late-stage Cesarean section causes recurrent early preterm birth: how to tackle this problem?Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare instrumental vaginal deliveries (IDs) and Caesarean sections (CSs) performed at full cervical dilatation, including factors influencing delivery and differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of patients who experienced a prolonged second stage of labour at Singapore General Hospital from 2010 to 2012. A comparison between CS and ID was made through analysis of maternal/neonatal characteristics and peripartum outcomes.
resultsOf 253 patients who required intervention for a prolonged second stage of labour, 71 (28.1%) underwent CS and 182 (71.9%) underwent ID. 5 (2.0%) of the patients who underwent CS had failed ID. Of the maternal characteristics considered, ethnicity was significantly different. Induction of labour and intrapartum epidural did not influence delivery type. 70.4% of CSs occurred outside office hours, compared with 52.7% of IDs (p = 0.011). CS patients experienced a longer second stage of labour (p < 0.001). Babies born via CS were heavier (p < 0.001), while the ID group had a higher proportion of occipitoanterior presentations (p < 0.001). Estimated maternal blood loss was higher with CSs (p < 0.001), but neonatal outcomes were similar.
conclusionMore than one in four parturients requiring intervention for a prolonged second stage of labour underwent emergency CS. Low failed instrumentation rates and larger babies in the CS group suggest accurate diagnoses of cephalopelvic disproportion. The higher incidence of CS after hours suggests trainee reluctance to attempt ID. There were no clinically significant differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity.
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.