SynthesisBMJ open2019
Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Cesarean Section Rates and Mobile Health's Role in Equitable Access to Prenatal Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Early perinatal outcomes in adolescent pregnancy: a Romanian decade of demographic and social change (2011-2012 vs. 2022-2023).Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Evaluating rates and factors associated with cesarean section and inpatient cost among low-risk deliveries in selected U.S. states.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The influence of emotional labor and emotional intelligence on cesarean section decision-making among midwives and obstetricians in Kosovo: A cross-sectional study using conjoint analysis.European journal of midwifery · 2025Article
- Managing Pregnancy and Nursing Affecting African American Women with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Clinical Outcomes and Parenthood.Medical research archives · 2023Article
- Inequalities in cesarean births between American Indian & Alaska Native people and White people.Health services research · 2023Article
- Office hours and caesarean section: systematic review and Meta-analysis.Research in health services & regions · 2022Review
- Caesarean birth in public maternities in Argentina: a formative research study on the views of obstetricians, midwives and trainees.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Caesarean sections and health financing: a global analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the odds of caesarean section (CS) for uninsured women in the USA and understand the underlying mechanisms as well as consequences of lower use. STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL from the first year of records to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of ORs of CS of uninsured as compared with insured women. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with privately or publicly insured women. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with insured women.
results12 articles describing 16 separate studies involving more than 8.8 million women were included in this study. We found: 0.70 times lower odds of CS in uninsured as compared with privately insured women (95% CI 0.63 to 0.78), with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ
conclusionsCSs are less likely to be performed in uninsured women as compared with insured women. While the higher rates for CS among privately insured women can be explained with financial incentives associated with private insurance, the lower odds among uninsured women draw attention at barriers to access for delivery care. In many regions, the rates for uninsured women are above, close or below the benchmarks for appropriate CS rates and could imply both, underuse and overuse.
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.