ReviewSeminars in perinatology2019
Making cesarean delivery SAFE in low- and middle-income countries.
Review in Seminars in perinatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mortality rate and risk factors for relaparotomy after caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Using maternal sepsis patient journeys to map and prioritise barriers to quality maternal healthcare in Malawi: a multidisciplinary stakeholder consultation workshop.Global health action · 2025Article
- Early Neonatal Mortality (< 24 h) in Ecuador: A Population-Based Study on the Impact of Apgar Score, Gestational Age, Birth Weight, Delivery Type, and Healthcare Level.International journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Twenty-five years after its publication, innovative solutions to the three delays model are essential.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cesarean birth (CB) rates are rising, globally. The global burden of CB is having a mixed effect on pregnancy outcomes and requires significant clinical and economic resources. The context of CB care in low- and middle-income countries is further complicated by barriers to facility-based care itself, followed by issues with quality and delivery of care in these resource-limited settings. The objective of this commentary is to propose an original, new, flexible, comprehensive care model for delivering SAFE cesarean delivery care in very low-resource settings. This model, the SAFEmodel for cesarean delivery care in low- and middle-income countries, developed by the authors, does not assume the current care model is working. It does not assume that even traditional hospital settings are what is needed to solve the problem of delivering high-quality, easily accessible CB care in the most remote and geographically isolated communities. The novel model promotes a decentralized care program that brings emergency obstetric care to women instead of the converse through four concepts: the care should be cloSe (community-based), it should be very dedicated to Action (transfer of care), it should be Focused on and highly specific to labor and delivery (cesarean birth center), and finally, it should be committed to high-quality care through iterative Evidence-based quality improvement programming and data collection.
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.