ArticleCureus2022
Cesarean Audit Using Robson Classification at a Tertiary Care Center in Bihar: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Implementation of the Robson classification for caesarean sections in Israel: a 10-year cross-sectional study.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Optimizing caesarean section use and feasibility of implementing the Robson classification system: Perspectives of healthcare providers and policymakers.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Frequency of Caesarean Section Classified by Robson's Ten Group Classification System: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2023Article
- Child-Mother Index: a new risk factor for selected adverse maternal birth outcomes.AJOG global reports · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Since 1985, the international healthcare community has considered the ideal rate for cesarean section (CS) to be between 10% and 15%.However, CS has been increasing both in developed and developing countries. The aim of the present study was to audit CS using Robson's Ten Group Classification System (TGCS). Methodology This retrospective, hospital record-based study was conducted over a period of three years from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2019, in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India. Data of patients who delivered by CS during this period were recorded and categorized in the 10 groups of TGCS. The size of each group, CS rate, and contribution of each group toward overall CS were calculated. Indications of CS in each group were analyzed, and strategies were planned to optimize the use of CS. The Chi-square test was used to analyse the statistical significance of the differences in the number of CS between the different Robson's groups. Results The total number of deliveries was 2,128 during the study period, of which CS was performed in 812 deliveries, with a CS rate of 38.16% in our institute. Robson's group 5 (34.97%) was the major contributor to the overall CS rate, followed by group 2 (26.35%), group 1 (15.51%), and group 10 (7.14%). The incidence of primary CS (61.82%) was more than repeat CS (38.17%). Previous CS, fetal distress, failed induction, arrest of labor, and malpresentation were the main indications for CS. Conclusions Robson's TGCS serves as an important tool for auditing CS. Indications of CS among major contributors and primary group should be analyzed regularly and uniform and standard protocols should be used. Standardization of indications for CS, regular audits, and definite protocols will help in reducing the CS rate in our hospital.
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.