Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36148449›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

Planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section: A structured review of the evidence on the associated outcomes for women and their children in high-income setting.

Kathryn E Fitzpatrick, Maria A Quigley, Jennifer J Kurinczuk

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. FIGO good practice recommendations for vaginal birth after cesarean section.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  3. Delivery outcomes in women with previous caesarean delivery at Zithulele Hospital - A rural district hospital managed by generalist doctors.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kathryn E FitzpatrickNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maria A QuigleyNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jennifer J KurinczukNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many high-income settings policy consensus supports giving pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean section a choice between planning an elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or planning a vaginal birth after previous cesarean (VBAC), provided they have no contraindications to VBAC. To help women make an informed decision regarding this choice, clinical guidelines advise women should be counseled on the associated risks and benefits. The most recent and comprehensive review of the associated risks and benefits of planned VBAC compared to ERCS in high-income settings was published in 2010 by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This paper describes a structured review of the evidence in high-income settings that has been published since the AHRQ review and the literature in high-income settings that has been published since 1980 on outcomes not included in the AHRQ review. Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for relevant studies meeting pre-specified eligible criteria, supplemented by searching of reference lists. Forty-seven studies were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria and included in the structured review. The review suggests that while planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with an increased risk of various serious birth-related complications for both the mother and her baby, the absolute risk of these complications is small for either birth approach. The review also found some evidence that planned VBAC compared to ERCS is associated with benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay and a higher likelihood of breastfeeding. The limited evidence available also suggests that planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section is not associated with the child's subsequent risk of experiencing adverse neurodevelopmental or health problems in childhood. This information can be used to manage and counsel women with previous cesarean section about their subsequent birth choices. Collectively, the evidence supports existing consensus that there are risks and benefits associated with both planned VBAC and ERCS, and therefore women without contraindications to VBAC should be given an informed choice about planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section. However, further studies into the longer-term effects of planned mode of birth after previous cesarean section are needed along with more research to address the other key limitations and gaps that have been highlighted with the existing evidence.

Indexed as

child outcomeselective repeat cesarean section (ERCS)maternal outcomesperinatal outcomesplanned mode of birth after previous cesarean sectiontrial of labor after a previous cesarean deliveryvaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery (VBAC)vaginal birth after previous cesarean section

Identifiers

PMID36148449
PMCPMC9486480
OpenAlexW4294739435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.