ArticleScientific reports2021
Cesarean section was not associated with mortality or morbidities advantage in very low birth weight infants: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of changes in health policies caused by COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes in Iran during health crises: A retrospective quasi-experimental study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Maternal Infections, Antibiotics, Steroid Use, and Diabetes Mellitus Increase Risk of Early-Onset Sepsis in Preterm Neonates: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes of Preterm Infants in 2 Periods: Vermont Oxford Network Results of a Developing Country's Single- Center Level IIIC Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Experience.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Comparisons of care practices for very preterm infants and their short-term outcomes in two tertiary centers in northwest and south China: A retrospective cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the role of cesarean section (CS) in mortality and morbidity of very-low-birth-weight infants (VLBWIs) weighing less than 1500 g. This nationwide prospective cohort study of the Korean Neonatal Network consisted of 9,286 VLBWIs at 23-34 gestational weeks (GW) of age between 2013 and 2017. The VLBWIs were stratified into 23-24, 25-26, 27-28 and 29-34 GW, and the mortality and morbidity were compared according to the mode of delivery. The total CS rate was 78%, and was directly proportional to gestational age. The CS rate was the lowest at 61% in case of infants born at 23-24 GW and the highest at 84% in VLBWIs delivered at 29-34 GW. Contrary to the significantly lower total mortality (12%) and morbidities including sepsis (21%) associated with CS than vaginal delivery (VD) (16% and 24%, respectively), the mortality in the 25-26 GW (26%) and sepsis in the 27-28 GW (25%) and 29-34 GW (12%) groups were significantly higher in CS than in VD (21%, 20% and 8%, respectively). In multivariate analyses, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for mortality (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89-1.25) and morbidity including sepsis (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.27) were not significantly reduced with CS compared with VD. The adjusted ORs for respiratory distress syndrome (1.89, 95% CI 1.59-2.23) and symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus (1.21, 95% CI 1.08-1.37) were significantly increased with CS than VD. In summary, CS was not associated with any survival or morbidity advantage in VLBWIs. These findings indicate that routine CS in VLBWIs without obstetric indications is contraindicated.
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.