ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Does an increased number of cesarean sections result in greater risk for mother and baby in low-risk, late preterm and term deliveries?
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.
- Article
- Pregnancy Outcomes Following Planned Cesarean Section: Experience From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Bahrain.Cureus · 2025Article
- Individual and community-level factors associated with caesarean section in Haiti: secondary analysis of data from the 2016-2017 Haitian Demographic and Health Survey.Tropical medicine and health · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare surgical complications and maternal and neonatal outcomes of low-risk, late preterm and term pregnant women who have had one or two previous cesarean sections (CSs) with those who have had three or more CSs.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 850 patients undergoing repeat CS at a tertiary level maternity hospital in Ankara, Turkey. Of those, 380 had previously undergone one or two CSs (Group-I: second or third CS) and 470 had previously undergone three or four CSs (Group-II: fourth or fifth CS). Outcomes and complications were compared between the groups.
resultsThe two groups were statistically significantly different in terms of maternal age, parity, body mass index, maternal weight gain during pregnancy, and length of hospital stay (all p<0.001). Although the prevalence of intraperitoneal adhesions and placenta previa was higher in Group-II than in Group-I (p<0.001), there was no statistically significant difference in terms of cesarean hysterectomy and adjacent organ injuries (p>0.05). There were also no significant differences between the groups in terms of neonatal outcomes (p>0.05).
conclusionAlthough the increase in the number of CSs appears to be associated with intraperitoneal adhesions and placenta previa, adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were not observed in those women with low-risk pregnancies who underwent CS for the fourth or fifth time. Therefore, fourth and fifth CSs may be considered relatively safe surgical procedures in this cohort.
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.