ArticleJNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association2021
Cesarean Section Among all Deliveries in a Tertiary Care Centre of Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.
Article in JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWorldwide there is a tremendous increase in cesarean section rate over the last decades which has been a global public health issue. This study aimed to find out the prevalence of cesarean delivery in a tertiary care center of Nepal.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among pregnant women at tertiary care centre from 15th September 2019 to 15th October 2020. Ethical clearance was taken from the Institutional Review Committee (Ref: CMC-IRC/077/078-200). Convenience sampling was done to reach the sample size. Basic demographic data, clinical indications and neonatal outcomes were noted. Data entry was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20. Point estimate at 95% Confidence Interval was calculated along with frequency and proportion for binary data.
resultsOut of 3193 total deliveries, cesarean deliveries were 1412 (44.22%) at 95% Confidence Interval (42.49-45.94). Among caesarean deliveries 1086 (76.9%) were emergency cesarean sections. Most common indication for cesarean section was fetal distress (24.9%). Among 1437 newborns, 1428 (99.4%) were live births, 1387 (98.2%) were singleton and 801 (55.7%) were male. Nearly one third 418 (29.1%) neonates required neonatal intensive care unit admission and transient tachypnoea of newborns (44.28% in emergency and 60.46% in elective cesarean delivery) was the most common indication for admission.
conclusionsThe prevalence of cesarean delivery was found to be higher than that recommended by the World Health Organisation. Fetal distress was the leading indication for cesarean deliveries.
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.