Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34127077›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

A systematic review on the effectiveness of implementation strategies to postpone elective caesarean sections to ≥ 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation.

Barbara Prediger, Anahieta Heu-Parvaresch, Stephanie Polus, Stefanie Bühn, Edmund A M Neugebauer, Pieper Dawid

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Did the introduction of an electronic booking form for elective caesarean section improve compliance with guidelines for gestational age at delivery?International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Barbara PredigerInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Haus 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany. barbara.prediger@uni-wh.de.
Anahieta Heu-ParvareschInstitute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, The University Hospital of Cologne (AöR), Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie PolusInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefanie BühnInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Haus 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Edmund A M NeugebauerFaculty of Health, Brandenburg Medical School - Theodor Fontane, Campus Neuruppin, Fehrbelliner Str.38, 16816, Neuruppin, Germany.
Pieper DawidInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Haus 38, 51109, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaesarean sections often have no urgent indication and are electively planned. Research showed that elective caesarean section should not be performed until 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation to ensure best neonatal and maternal health if there are no contraindications. This was recommended by various guidelines published in the last two decades. With this systematic review, we are looking for implementation strategies trying to implement these recommendations to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation.

methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on 3rd of March 2021. We included studies that assessed implementation strategies aiming to postpone elective caesarean section to ≥ 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. There were no restrictions regarding the type of implementation strategy or reasons for elective caesarean section. Our primary outcome was the rate of elective caesarean sections before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. We used the ROBINS-I Tool for the assessment of risk of bias. We did a narrative analysis of the results.

resultsWe included 10 studies, of which were 2 interrupted time series and 8 before-after studies, covering 205,954 elective caesarean births. All studies included various types of implementation strategies. All implementation strategies showed success in decreasing the rate of elective caesarean sections performed < 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. Risk difference differed from - 7 (95% CI - 8; - 7) to - 45 (95% CI - 51; - 31). Three studies reported the rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission and showed little reduction.

conclusionThis systematic review shows that all presented implementation strategies to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation are effective. Reduction rates differ widely and it remains unclear which strategy is most successful. Strategies used locally in one hospital seem a little more effective. Included studies are either before-after studies (8) or interrupted time series (2) and the overall quality of the evidence is rather low. However, most of the studies identified specific barriers in the implementation process. For planning an implementation strategy to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation, it is necessary to consider specific barriers and facilitators and take all obstetric personal into account. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017078231.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionIntensive Care Units, NeonatalElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyElective caesarean sectionGestational ageGuidelines into practiceImplementation strategiesTerm birth

Identifiers

PMID34127077
PMCPMC8201675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.