ArticleSaudi medical journal2019
Indications and rate of first cesarean delivery in central region's maternity and children hospital.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of physician, family and society on the choice of Cesarean-section delivery mode among Lebanese females.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the indications of first (non-repeated) cesarean deliveries, to categorize those indications into absolute and relative according to established guidelines of cesarean deliveries, and to compare the women with absolute and relative indications by demography and pregnancy-related attributes. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of delivery data between September and October 2018, at the Maternity and Children Hospital, Buraidah, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia. Indications for cesarean deliveries of 200 primary cases were abstracted and were categorized into 'absolute' and 'relative' according to the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany guidelines. Results: The leading indications were fetal distress (27.5%), non-progression of labor (22.5%), breech presentation (18%), and failed initiation of labor (4.5%). Of the 200 cases, 26.5% had absolute indications, 50% had relative indications, and 23.5% had indications that were neither absolute nor relative. Women with absolute indications had lower mean gestational age and a higher proportion with greater than 3 gravida than women with relative indications (p less than 0.05). Conclusion: The most common indications for first time cesarean, in decreasing order of frequency, were fetal distress, non-progression of labor, and breech presentation.
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.