ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2021
Pelvic floor: vaginal or caesarean delivery? A review of systematic reviews.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delivery mode and maternal health conditions before and after childbirth: A population-based cohort study from Estonia.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Perineal structural changes on 3-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound 6 months after difficult vaginal birth: the Hourglass-Band pattern and how it relates to levator ani avulsion and hiatus size.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Urinary Incontinence and Its Relationship with Obstetric, Age, and Ethnic Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ventral Rectopexy: An International Expert Panel Consensus and Review of Contemporary Literature.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- Pelvic floor disorder and relevant factors in Iranian women of reproductive age: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Review
- Does Advanced Maternal Age Comprise an Independent Risk Factor for Caesarean Section? A Population-Wide Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- 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
- Risk factors of pelvic floor muscle strength in south Chinese women: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Has the cesarean epidemic in Czechia been reversed despite fertility postponement?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisIn recent years the number of caesarean sections has increased worldwide for different reasons. to review the scientific evidence relating to the impact of the type of delivery on pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) such as urinary and faecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsA review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, drawn from the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud/Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) prior to January 2019. The directives of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in assessing article quality.
resultsEleven systematic reviews were evaluated, 6 of which found a significantly decreased risk of urinary incontinence associated with caesarean section and 3 meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in POP for caesarean section, compared with vaginal delivery. Of 5 reviews that examined delivery type and faecal incontinence, only one indicated a lower incidence of faecal incontinence associated with caesarean delivery. However, most of the studies included in these reviews were not adjusted for important confounding factors and the risk of PFDs was not analysed by category of caesarean delivery (elective or urgent).
conclusionWhen compared with vaginal delivery, caesarean is associated with a reduced risk of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. These results should be interpreted with caution and do not help to address the question of whether elective caesareans are protective of the maternal pelvic floor.
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.