ArticleReproductive health2021
How birth outcomes among a cohort of Guatemalan women with a history of prior cesarean vary by mode or birth across different interpregnancy intervals.
Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Interpregnancy Interval With Adverse Birth Outcomes.JAMA network open · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOur objectives were to analyze how pregnancy outcomes varied by cesarean birth as compared to vaginal birth across varying interpregnancy intervals (IPI) and determine if IPI modified mode of birth.
methodsThis secondary analysis used data from a prospective registry of home and hospital births in Chimaltenango, Guatemala from January 2017 through April 2020, through the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research. Bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression were used to answer our study question, and the data was analyzed with STATA software v.15.1.
resultsOf 26,465 Guatemalan women enrolled in the registry, 2794 (10.6%) had a history of prior cesarean. 560 (20.1%) women delivered by vaginal birth after cesarean with the remaining 2,233 (79.9%) delivered by repeat cesarean. Repeat cesarean reduced the risk of needing a dilation and curettage compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, but this association did not vary by IPI, all p-values > p = 0.05. Repeat cesarean delivery, as compared to vaginal birth after cesarean, significantly reduced the likelihood a woman breastfeeding within one hour of birth (AOR ranged from 0.009 to 0.10), but IPI was not associated with the outcome. Regarding stillbirth, repeat cesarean birth reduced the likelihood of stillbirth as compared to vaginal birth (AOR 0.2), but again IPI was not associated with the outcome.
conclusionOutcomes by mode of delivery among a Guatemalan cohort of women with a history of prior cesarean birth do not vary by IPI.
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.