ArticlePloS one2020
The Robson classification for caesarean section-A proposed method based on routinely collected health data.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Retrospective Analysis of the Robson Classification Implementation in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Serbia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Trends in Caesarean Section Rate According to Robson Group Classification among Pregnant Women with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Single-Center Large Cohort Study in Italy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Investigating Caesarean Section Practice among Teenage Romanian Mothers Using Modified Robson Ten Group Classification System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith an increasing rate of caesarean sections as well as rising numbers of multiple pregnancies, valid classifications for benchmarking are needed. The Robson classification provides a method to group cases with caesarean section in order to assess differences in outcome across regions and sites. In this study we set up a novel method of classification by using routinely collected health data. We hypothesize i that routinely collected health data can be used to apply complex medical classifications and ii that the Robson classification is capable of classifying mothers and their corresponding newborn into meaningful groups with regard to outcome. METHODS AND
findingsThe study was conducted at the coding department and the department of obstetrics and gynecology Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Switzerland. The study population contained inpatient cases from 2014 until 2017. Administrative and health data were extracted from the Data Warehouse. Cases were classified by a Structured Query Language code according to the Robson criteria using data from the administrative system, the electronic health record and from the laboratory system. An automated query to classify the cases according to Robson could be implemented and successfully validated. A linkage of the mother's class to the corresponding newborn could be established. The distribution of clinical indicators was described. It could be shown that the Robson classes are associated to outcome parameters and case related costs.
conclusionsWith this study it could be demonstrated, that a complex query on routinely collected health data would serve for medical classification and monitoring of quality and outcome. Risk-stratification might be conducted using this data set and should be the next step in order to evaluate the Robson criteria and outcome. This study will enhance the discussion to adopt an automated classification on routinely collected health data for quality assurance purposes.
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.