Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35134286›Full record

ArticleRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia2021

Demonstration of the application of the global cesarean section rate model (C-Model) and the Robson Classification to estimate and characterize excess numbers of institutional c-sections

John Jairo Zuleta-Tobón

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

John Jairo Zuleta-TobónCentro Nacer, Salud Sexual y Reproductiva, adscrito al Departamento de Ginecología y Obstetricia de la Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín (Colombia).. jjzuleta@une.net.co.ORCID 0000-0001-5407-7714

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To carry out an academic exercise based on real local data regarding the application of the C-Model v1.0 to determine how data are gathered and used to generate the model, how the model is applied in order to identify potential excess numbers of cesarean sections in an institution, and when identified, how the model is applied to distribute deliveries according to the Robson Classification system and explain excess numbers. Methodology: The standardized ratio and absolute difference between the observed proportion and the expected probability of c-sections according to the C-Model v1.0 were estimated for each institution using real databases of five hospitals in Colombia. Convenience selection was used to meet the objectives. Based on the assumptions underpinning group distributions according to the Robson classification, proposed explanations for excess numbers and differences among institutions are presented. Results: Applying the C-Model, the c-section standardized ratio identified different excess numbers of the procedure in the presence of similar institutional c-section proportions. Important variability was found in the proportion of c-sections among women with similar clinical and obstetric characteristics, which might explain the excess numbers identified. Conclusion: The C-Model allows to estimate expected c-section proportions according to the specific characteristics of the women seen at each institution; their distribution according to the Robson Classification is a way to explore the origin and particulars of those differences.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionHospitalsColombiaFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansMalePregnancybenchmarkingcesarean sectionforecastingstatistical models

Identifiers

PMID35134286
PMCPMC8833240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.