Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36951859›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Evaluation of Cesarean Rates for Term, Singleton, Live Vertex Deliveries in China in 2020 Among Women With No Prior Cesarean Delivery.

Shaohua Yin, Lian Chen, Yubo Zhou, Pengbo Yuan, Xiaoyue Guo, Jie Lu, Lin Ge, Huifeng Shi, Xiaoxia Wang, Luyao Li and 5 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Shaohua YinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lian ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yubo ZhouInstitute of Reproductive and Child Health, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Reproductive Health, Peking University Health Science Centre, Beijing, China.
Pengbo YuanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyue GuoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jie LuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lin GeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Huifeng ShiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaoxia WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Luyao LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jie QiaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yangyu ZhaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hongbo QiDepartment of Obstetrics, Women and Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xudong MaDepartment of Healthcare Quality Evaluation, Bureau of Medical Administration, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, China.
Yuan WeiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CNPeking University Third Hospital · CNChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNNational Health and Family Planning Commission · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Substantial regional variation in cesarean delivery rates has been reported in China, but there is a lack of reports on hospital-level variation in these rates among low-risk deliveries. Objectives: To evaluate hospital variation in cesarean rates in China for term, singleton, live vertex deliveries among women with no prior cesarean delivery and to estimate contributions of individual and hospital factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cross-sectional study used data from maternal patient discharge records collected by the Hospital Quality Monitoring System in China from January 1 to December 31, 2020. Pregnant female individuals aged 15 to 49 years (referred to hereafter as women) with at least 1 live birth were included, and low-risk deliveries were defined as term, singleton, live, vertex deliveries with no prior cesarean delivery. Exposures: Birth by cesarean delivery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was cesarean delivery rate by hospital. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted cesarean rate and to estimate the percentage of hospital variation in low-risk deliveries explained by individual and hospital factors. Results: Among the 7 635 149 deliveries identified from 4359 hospitals in 31 provinces of mainland China, 6 599 468 (86.4%) were considered low risk. Of overall and low-risk deliveries, 3 400 162 and 2 638 097 were cesarean deliveries, corresponding to mean rates of 44.5% and 40.0%, respectively. The mean (SD) maternal age for overall and low-risk deliveries was 29.1 (4.0) and 28.8 (4.8) years, respectively, and mothers were more likely to be of Han ethnicity (89.5%). Cesarean rates varied widely among hospitals, with absolute differences between the 5th and 95th percentiles of 53.5% (19.4%-72.9%) for overall deliveries and 56.8% (14.3%-71.1%) for low-risk deliveries. Large absolute differences remained after adjusting for maternal characteristics, with rates of 47.4% (19.1%-66.5%) for overall deliveries and 52.6% (15.0%-67.6%) for low-risk deliveries. Among low-risk deliveries, hospital factors (eg, hospital province location) explained 31.3% of the hospital variation in cesarean rate and individual factors explained an additional 2.0%. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that cesarean rates varied markedly among hospitals in China in 2020, which may be attributable to hospital rather than individual factors. Future work is needed to design hospital-level initiatives to optimize cesarean use, particularly among low-risk deliveries.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansMaternal AgePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36951859
PMCPMC10037159
OpenAlexW4360600282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read105
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.