ArticlePLoS medicine2019
Planned mode of delivery after previous cesarean section and short-term maternal and perinatal outcomes: A population-based record linkage cohort study in Scotland.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- FIGO good practice recommendations for vaginal birth after cesarean section.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Guideline
- Risk Factors Associated with Maternal Postpartum Hospital Readmission: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) compared with elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS): a cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Severe Maternal Morbidity by Race and Ethnicity and Birth Mode Among Individuals With a Prior Cesarean Birth.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Trial of labor after caesarean section in low risk pregnancies: is it risky?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Microbial Etiology, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Risk Factors of Surgical Site Infections in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Patients Undergoing Elective Pre-Labor Cesarean Deliveries.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Hospital factors associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery: an ecological study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Article
- Prior childbirth experience and attitude towards subsequent vaginal birth after one caesarean delivery in Lagos, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section and risk of undergoing pelvic floor surgery: A Scottish population-based record linkage cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Feeding Practices, Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Vaginal Birth after Cesarean and Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Higher risk of hemorrhage and maternal morbidity in vaginal birth after second stage of labor C-section.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section: A structured review of the evidence on the associated outcomes for women and their children in high-income setting.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Planned mode of birth after previous caesarean section and special educational needs in childhood: a population-based record linkage cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Article
- Pregnancy-Related and Perinatal Outcomes in Women With Multiple Sclerosis: A Nationwide Danish Cross-sectional Study.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2021Article
- Late registration for antenatal care by pregnant women with previous history of caesarean section.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021Article
- Observational
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolicy consensus in high-income countries supports offering pregnant women with previous cesarean section a choice between planning an elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or attempting a vaginal birth, known as a planned vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC), provided they do not have contraindications to planned VBAC. However, robust comprehensive information on the associated outcomes to counsel eligible women about this choice is lacking. This study investigated the short-term maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with planned mode of delivery after previous cesarean section among women delivering a term singleton and considered eligible to have a planned VBAC. METHODS AND
findingsA population-based cohort of 74,043 term singleton births in Scotland between 2002 and 2015 to women with one or more previous cesarean sections was conducted using linked Scottish national datasets. Logistic or modified Poisson regression, as appropriate, was used to estimate the effect of planned mode of delivery on maternal and perinatal outcomes adjusted for sociodemographic, maternal medical, and obstetric-related characteristics. A total of 45,579 women gave birth by ERCS, and 28,464 had a planned VBAC, 28.4% of whom went on to have an in-labor nonelective repeat cesarean section. Compared to women delivering by ERCS, those who had a planned VBAC were significantly more likely to have uterine rupture (0.24%, n = 69 versus 0.04%, n = 17, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-13.9, p < 0.001), a blood transfusion (1.14%, n = 324 versus 0.50%, n = 226, aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.8, p < 0.001), puerperal sepsis (0.27%, n = 76 versus 0.17%, n = 78, aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.7, p = 0.002), and surgical injury (0.17% versus 0.09%, n = 40, aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8-4.8, p < 0.001) and experience adverse perinatal outcomes including perinatal death, admission to a neonatal unit, resuscitation requiring drugs and/or intubation, and an Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes (7.99%, n = 2,049 versus 6.37%, n = 2,570, aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5-1.7, p < 0.001). However, women who had a planned VBAC were more likely than those delivering by ERCS to breastfeed at birth or hospital discharge (63.6%, n = 14,906 versus 54.5%, n = 21,403, adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p < 0.001) and were more likely to breastfeed at 6-8 weeks postpartum (43.6%, n = 10,496 versus 34.5%, n = 13,556, aRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3, p < 0.001). The effect of planned mode of delivery on the mother's risk of having a postnatal stay greater than 5 days, an overnight readmission to hospital within 42 days of birth, and other puerperal infection varied according to whether she had any prior vaginal deliveries and, in the case of length of postnatal stay, also varied according to the number of prior cesarean sections. The study is mainly limited by the potential for residual confounding and misclassification bias.
conclusionsAmong women considered eligible to have a planned VBAC, planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with an increased risk of the mother having serious birth-related maternal and perinatal complications. Conversely, planned VBAC is associated with an increased likelihood of breastfeeding, whereas the effect on other maternal outcomes differs according to whether a woman has any prior vaginal deliveries and the number of prior cesarean sections she has had. However, the absolute risk of adverse outcomes is small for either delivery approach. This information can be used to counsel and manage the increasing number of women with previous cesarean section, but more research is needed on longer-term outcomes.
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.