ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health2020
Using the Robson 10-Group Classification System to Compare Cesarean Birth Utilization Between US Centers With and Without Midwives.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Retrospective Cohort Study on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cesarean Birth in a Midwifery-Integrated Health System.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2026Article
- Characteristics and Outcomes Among Asian Birthing People in the American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Midwifery Care in the United States: Increasing Access and Utilization to Improve Perinatal Health Outcomes.Obstetrical & gynecological survey · 2025Review
- A Retrospective Analysis of the Robson Classification Implementation in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Serbia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Characterizing uterine responsiveness to oxytocin augmentation across four labor patterns in maternal obesity.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Frequency of Caesarean Section Classified by Robson's Ten Group Classification System: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- The Pathophysiology of Labor Dystocia: Theme with Variations.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
- Induction of labor or expectant management? Birth outcomes for nulliparous individuals choosing midwifery care.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2021Article
- COVID-19 Pandemic and Birth Experience. The Monopoly of Caesarean Sections. A Critical Realist Review.Maedica · 2021Article
- The evolution of professional obstetric nursing in the United States (1880's-present): Qualitative content analysis of specialty nursing textbooks.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2020Review
- Analysis of Caesarean Section Rates Using the Robson Classification System at a University Hospital in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Article
- Outcomes for Labor Induction Compared With Expectant Management Among Women Receiving Hospital-Based, Midwifery-Led Care.Journal of midwifery & women's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Robson 10-group classification system stratifies cesarean birth rates using maternal characteristics. Our aim was to compare cesarean birth utilization in US centers with and without midwifery care using the Robson classification.
methodsWe used National Institute of Child and Human Development Consortium on Safe Labor data from 2002 to 2008. Births to women in centers with interprofessional care that included midwives (n = 48,857) were compared with births in non-interprofessional centers (n = 47,935). To compare cesarean utilization, births were classified into the Robson categories. Cesarean birth rates within each category and the contribution to the overall rate were calculated. Maternal demographics, labor and birth outcomes, and neonatal outcomes were described. Logistic regression was used to adjust for maternal comorbidities.
resultsWomen were less likely to have a cesarean birth (26.1% vs 33.5%, P < .001) in centers with interprofessional care. Nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses (category 2) were less likely to have labor induced (11.1% vs 23.4%, P < .001), and women with a prior uterine scar (category 5) had lower cesarean birth rates (73.8% vs 85.1%, P < .001) in centers with midwives. In centers without midwives, nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses with induction of labor (category 2a) were less likely to have a cesarean birth compared with those in interprofessional care centers in unadjusted comparison (30.3% vs 35.8%, P < .001), but this was reversed after adjustment for maternal comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.32; P < .001). Cesarean birth rates among women at risk for complications (eg, breech) were similar between groups. DISCUSSION: Interprofessional care teams were associated with lower rates of labor induction and overall cesarean utilization as well as higher rates of vaginal birth after cesarean. There was consistency in cesarean rates among women with higher risk for complications.
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.