ArticlePloS one2020
A 10 year comparative study of caesarean deliveries using the Robson 10 group classification system in a university hospital in Austria.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Trends in cesarean section rates in Brazil by Robson classification group, 2014-2020.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- [Classification of caesarean sections by 10 Robson groups in a second level hospital].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Observational
- Frequency of Caesarean Section Classified by Robson's Ten Group Classification System: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- Implementation of the Robson Classification in Greece: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Robson ten group classification system is used as a global standard for assessing, monitoring and comparing caesarean delivery (CD) rates within and between maternity services. Our objective was to compare the changes of CD rates at our institution between the years 2008-2010 and 2017-2019 using the Robson ten group classification system. STUDY
designData was collected retrospectively and all women were classified using the obstetric concepts and parameters described in the Robson ten group classification system.
resultsDuring 2008-2010 7,832 deliveries were performed, increasing to 9,490 in 2017-2019. The CD rate also increased from 29.1% to 32.2% (p<.05) during this 10 year period. In both observed periods group 5 (single cephalic multiparous women at term with a previous CD) was the largest contributor to the overall CD rate accounting for 20.2% of all CD during 2008-2010 and increasing to 26.9% in 2017-2019 (p<.001). The overall size of group 5 also increased from 8.3% to 11.6% (p<.001). Furthermore, an increase in CD rate in group 7 (multiparous women with a single breech pregnancy, including women with a uterine scar) from 92.9% to 98.2% (p = .752) could be observed. In group 8 (women with multiple pregnancies, including women with a uterine scar) a slight shift towards vaginal delivery (VD) can be reported with CD rates decreasing from 82% to 79.2% (p = .784). There was no observed difference with CD rates in group 1 although the group size decreased from 29.4% in 2008-2010 to 24.2% in 2017-2019 (p<.001). The CD rate in group 10 experienced a slight elevation, in 2008-2010 46.2% were delivered per CD and in 2017-2019 48.8% (p = .553). The overall size of group 10 decreased, contributing 8.9% in 2008-2010 and 8% in 2017-2019 (p<.05) to the overall birthrate.
conclusionThe biggest contributors to the CD rate in our hospital remain multiparous women at term with a previous CD. The CD rates, as well as the overall size of this group, keep rising, resulting in a need to establish more effective ways to motivate women with one previous CD towards vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC). Furthermore, the CD rate in preterm deliveries is increasing and approaching 50%. This illustrates the need to discuss whether CD is the appropriate mode of delivery in half of the preterm infants.
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.