ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Delivery in Myopic Women: A Comparison of Mode of Delivery in Years 1990, 2000, and 2010.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of uveitic and chorioretinal conditions in pregnancy.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- A State-of-the-Art Review of Ophthalmological Indications for a Cesarean Section: Is There a Patient for Whom a Cesarean Section Is Really Indicated?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Factors Associated with the Type of Cesarean Section in Greece and Their Correlation with International Guidelines.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2021Article
- Immediate post partum macular subretinal bleeding in a highly myopic patient: a case report.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND A belief has existed for many years that severe myopia is a direct indication for cesarean section or an instrumental vaginal delivery, although many academic papers negated this opinion. The aim of this study was to analyze the mode of delivery of myopic patients in the years 1990, 2000, and 2010. MATERIAL AND METHODS Medical records of 3027 women in labor from the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw were analyzed in 3 time periods: year 1990 - group 1 (G1), year 2000 - group 2 (G2), and 2010 - group 3 (G3). Maternal age, severity and proportion of myopia, ophthalmological consultations, and mode of delivery were assessed. RESULTS In G1 there were 992 patients, in G2 there were 1010 patients, and in G3 there were 1025 patients. Myopic women in labor accounted for 20% of G1, 12% of G2, and 20% of G3. The mean maternal age was ±29.4 years in G1, ±30 years in G2, and ±31.5 years in G3. Myopia was divided into 3 levels of severity depending on the degree of refractive error: low myopia -6 DS. The number of ophthalmological examinations needed in myopic patients to decide on the mode of delivery showed an increasing tendency over the evaluated years, but the rates of referrals for cesarean section/assisted delivery decreased. CONCLUSIONS The proportion of myopic women in labor receiving ophthalmological consultations showed an increasing trend over time. Despite publication of the Ophthalmology-Obstetrics Consensus of the Polish Society of Ophthalmology guidelines, myopia still remains an indication for cesarean section (cesarian section), but not to shorten the second stage of delivery.
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.