ArticleBMJ open2020
Caesarean section rates analysed using Robson's 10-Group Classification System: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary cesarean section in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Robson Ten-Group Classification System.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Obstructed labor and its effect on adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence, indications, and outcomes of operative vaginal deliveries among mothers who gave birth in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Pooled it
- Developing and validating a risk prediction model for caesarean delivery in Northwest Amhara comprehensive specialized hospitals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of caesarean sections according to the Robson 10-group classification system in Somalia.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Magnitude and associated factors of caesarean section deliveries among women who gave birth in Southwest Ethiopia: institutional-based cross-sectional study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2021Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the caesarean section (CS) rates using Robson's 10-Group Classification System among women who gave birth at Hawassa University Referral Hospital in southern Ethiopia.
designCross-sectional study design to determine CS rate using Robson's 10-Group Classification System.
settingHawassa University Referral Hospital in south Ethiopia.
participants4004 women who gave birth in Hawassa University Referral Hospital from June 2018 to June 2019.
resultsThe 4004 women gave birth to 4165 babies. The overall CS rate was 32.8% (95% CI: 31.4%-34.3%). The major contributors to the overall CS rates were: Robson group 1 (nulliparous women with singleton pregnancy at term in spontaneous labour) 22.9%; group 5 (multiparous women with at least one previous CS) 21.4% and group 3 (multiparous women without previous CS, with singleton pregnancy in spontaneous labour) 17.3%. The most commonly reported indications for CS were 'fetal compromise' (35.3%) followed by previous CS (20.3%) and obstructed labour (10.7%).
conclusionA high proportion of women giving birth at this hospital were given a CS, and many of them were in a low-risk group. Few had trial of labour. More active use of partogram, improving fetal heartbeat-monitoring system, implementing midwife-led care, involving a companion during labour and auditing the appropriateness of CS indications may help to reduce the CS rate.
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.