Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833323›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ilir Hoxha, Medina Braha, Lamprini Syrogiannouli, David C Goodman, Peter Jüni

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cesarean Section Rates and Mobile Health's Role in Equitable Access to Prenatal Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Ilir HoxhaInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4262-1406
Medina BrahaInternational Business College Mitrovica, Mitrovica, Kosovo.
Lamprini SyrogiannouliInstitute of Primary Health Care, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
David C GoodmanInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Peter JüniApplied Health Research Centre (AHRC), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Department of Medicine, and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
University of Bern · CHDartmouth College · USSt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cesarean SectionFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthMedicaidMedically UninsuredPregnancySocioeconomic FactorsUnited Statescaesarean sectionhealth insurancemedical practice variationself-payunderuseuninsured

Identifiers

PMID30833323
PMCPMC6443081
OpenAlexW2919885570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.