ArticleJournal of pregnancy2020
Using the Robson Classification to Explain the Fluctuations in Cesarean Section.
Article in Journal of pregnancy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applying the Modified Ten-Group Robson Classification in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs the rate of cesarean sections (CS) continues to rise in Flanders (northern part of Belgium), it is important to understand the reasons behind this evolution and to find ways to achieve appropriate CS rates. For this analysis, we categorized CS changes between 1992 and 2016, applying the Robson 10-Group Classification System (TGCS). We also applied the TGCS to analyze the information of the only clinics where between 2008 and 2016, the absolute CS rate had fallen by more than two percent.
methodsThis paper is based on a population-based cross-sectional study. Robson's TGCS was used to analyze CS rates for the years 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016, using the Flemish population-based birth register.
resultsBetween 1992 and 2016, the overall CS rate increased from 11.8% in 1992 to 20.9% in 2016. The major contributors to that increase were (a) single, cephalic nulliparous women, at term in spontaneous labor (Robson group 1); (b) single, cephalic nulliparous women, at term in induced labor or CS before labor (group 2); and (c) multiparous women with single cephalic at term pregnancy with history of CS (group 5). In the subgroup of the seven clinics where the collective CS rate had decreased from 23.2% in 2008 to 19.3% in 2016, the main contributors to this decrease were Robson groups 1 and 2.
conclusionsThe CS increase in Flanders between 1992 and 2016 is mainly the result of the absolute CS increase in the childbirth of nulliparous women with a single cephalic baby at term in spontaneous or induced labor and in women with a single cephalic presentation at term and a previous CS. Further research in these aforementioned groups is needed to identify the real reasons for the CS increase.
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.