Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30956463›Full record

ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2019

VBAC: Changes over Last 10 Years.

Neha Gupta, Arpita De, Swaraj Batra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Neha GuptaHamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, G701, Prateek Stylome, Sector 45, Noida, 201301 India.
Arpita DeHamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, G701, Prateek Stylome, Sector 45, Noida, 201301 India.
Swaraj BatraHamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, G701, Prateek Stylome, Sector 45, Noida, 201301 India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionVaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) has been historically studied to be a standard and a safe procedure with good successful results.

aimsThis study was conducted to determine changes in pattern of VBAC by the same author over a period of 10 years.

resultsData for 1 year between 2005-2006 and 2014-2015 were compared, and successful VBAC was found to be 74.46% in 2005-2006 period compared to only 34.42% in 2014-2015. Neonatal mortality and maternal morbidity were, however, much higher 10 years ago.

conclusionsIt was concluded that better diagnostic techniques, awareness of patients and medico legal fear have led to safer health of mother and child and lesser incidence of VBAC over the last 10 years.

Indexed as

CaesareanFailedPreviousTrendsTrialVBAC

Identifiers

PMID30956463
PMCPMC6430443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.