ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
Impact of the interpregnancy interval after cesarean delivery on subsequent perinatal risks: a retrospective study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- "Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of the interpregnancy interval (IPI) after cesarean delivery on the risks of adverse perinatal events during subsequent pregnancies.
methodsWe retrospectively examined perinatal outcomes of subsequent pregnancies of women whose most recent birth experience involved cesarean delivery at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019. IPI was defined as the time between live birth and subsequent conception. Three IPI groups: < 18 months, 18-60 months, and > 60 months, were assessed. The risks of preterm birth, preeclampsia, placenta previa, placental abruption, fetal growth restriction, and successful vaginal birth were compared among the three IPI groups using uni- and multivariate analyses.
resultsWe registered 592 births after cesarean delivery: 178, 288, and 126 in the IPI < 18 months, 18-60 months, and > 60 months groups, respectively. The groups did not differ significantly regarding perinatal outcomes. The multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of adverse perinatal outcomes among all groups. The odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth at < 37 weeks of gestation were 1.24 and 1.64 for those in the < 18 months and > 60 months groups, respectively (P = 0.362 and P = 0.055, respectively). The groups did not differ significantly regarding vaginal birth success rate (ORs 1.72 for the < 18 months group, 0.49 for the > 60 months group; P = 0.486 and P = 0.446, respectively).
conclusionAfter cesarean delivery, IPIs shorter than 18 months and longer than 60 months do not significantly impact the risks of adverse perinatal outcomes or successful vaginal birth compared with IPIs of 18-60 months.
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.