ArticleMateria socio-medica2021
The Kind of Conception Affects the Kind of Cesarean Delivery in Primiparous Women.
Article in Materia socio-medica, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Single-centre comparative study of in vitro fertilisation and naturally conceived babies in Indonesia.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Gestational diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques or conceiving spontaneously: an analysis on maternal and foetal outcomes.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Article
- Associations of childhood allergies with parental reproductive and allergy history.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- ART outcome after euploid frozen embryo transfer is not affected by previous Cesarean section delivery in the absence of intracavitary fluid.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSo far, multiple factors have been found to be related to the IVF procedure, the most prevalent being extremes of maternal age, infections, previous gynecological history, infertility and others. Although women achieve the coveted pregnancy with the development of IVF technology, the rapid increase contributes to the increase of primary cesarean sections rates.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to identify if the kind of conception affects the kind of cesarean delivery among primiparous women in Greece.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study took place from September 2019 to February 2020 at the University Hospital of Larisa in Greece. One hundred and sixty-two primiparous women who underwent a cesarean section (c-section) after IVF (n=27) and natural conception (n=135) participated in the study.
resultsThe mean age of the IVF and natural conception groups were 36.22 and 31.08 years, respectively. Nineteen (70.4%) women of the IVF group had a previous medical or gynecological history in contrast to 48 (35.6%) women of the natural conception group. Only 55.6% of the IVF group had a full-term pregnancy unlike 88.1% of women in the natural conception group. An elective c-section was performed in 18 (66.7%) of the women who conceived after IVF, as opposed to 45 (33.3%) of the women who conceived naturally.
conclusionThis cross-sectional study showed that IVF conception was associated with high rates of elective cesarean section as opposed to women with natural conception. The causes of c-sections must be evidence based because the primary cesarean delivery is a major factor contributing to increased c-section rates.
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.