ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of neonatal outcomes between category-1 and non-category-1 Primary Emergency Cesarean Section: A retrospective record review in a tertiary care hospital.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating Cesarean Section Trends: A Study Using the Modified Robson Classification in a Tertiary Care Setting.Cureus · 2024Article
- Determination of Foetal Scalp Blood Sampling pH as an Indicator of Loss of Foetal Well-Being in Women Undergoing Caesarean Section.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Relationship between immediate postpartum umbilical cord pH, fetal distress and neonatal outcome.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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
objectiveTo compare neonatal outcomes between Category-1 and Non-Category-1 Primary Emergency Cesarean Section.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis, conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi from January 1
resultsIn the current study, out of 375 participants who underwent primary Em-CS; majority (89.3%) were booked cases. Two-hundred-eighty-two (75.2%) were primiparous women. Two hundred and thirty (61.3%) were at term and 145(38.7%) were preterm. The main indication among Category-1 CS was fetal distress (15.7%). For Non-Category-1 CS, non-progress of labour (45.1%) was the leading cause of abdominal delivery. Except for APGAR score at one minute (p value = 0.048), no other variables were statistically significant when neonatal outcomes were compared among Category-1 and Non-Category-1 CS.
conclusionIn this study, fetal distress and non-progress of labor were the main indications for Category-1 and Non-Category-1 CS respectively. We did not find statistically significant association between indications of Em CS and neonatal outcomes. However further prospective studies are required to confirm this association.
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.