ArticleJAMA network open2023
Cesarean Delivery Trends Among Patients at Low Risk for Cesarean Delivery in the US, 2000-2019.
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydatidiform Mole with Coexisting Normal Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Hospital Cesarean Delivery Rankings by Overall, Low-Risk, and Reliability-Adjusted Metrics.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Maternal Outcomes Among Periviable Births by Cesarean Delivery.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Factors Associated with Fetal Tachyarrhythmia Management and Outcomes: A Single-Center Retrospective Review of a Consistent Protocol.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Chorioamnionitis treatment for women with isolated intrapartum fever: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Value-Based Outsourcing Is Associated with Improved Healthcare Outcomes in Low- and Intermediate-Complexity European Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study from Spain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The impact of neighborhood-level racial and economic segregation on low-risk cesarean delivery among Black, White, and Biracial (Black/White) individuals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The Impact of Neighborhood-level Racial and Economic Segregation on Low-Risk Cesarean Delivery among Black, White, and Biracial (Black/White) Individuals.Research square · 2025Article
- Racial inequities in cesarean use among high- and low-risk deliveries: An analysis of childbirth hospitalizations in New Jersey from 2000 to 2015.Health services research · 2025Article
- 'Everyone in my family has C-sections': increased likelihood of caesarean birth in family lineages in the United States.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2025Article
- Periodic Bleeding from a Cesarean Section Scar Fistula.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Inconsistent definitions of prolonged labor in international literature: a scoping review.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Reducing rates of unnecessary cesarean deliveries is both a national and a global health objective. However, there are limited national US data on trends in indications for low-risk cesarean delivery. Objective: To determine temporal trends in and indications for cesarean delivery among patients at low risk for the procedure over a 20-year period. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed 2000 to 2019 delivery hospitalizations using the National Inpatient Sample. Births at low risk for cesarean delivery were identified using a definition from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria. Temporal trends in cesarean birth were analyzed using joinpoint regression to estimate the average annual percentage change (AAPC) with 95% CIs. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to January 2023. Exposure: This analysis evaluated cesarean birth trends in a population at low risk for this procedure over a 20-year period. Main Outcomes and Measures: In addition to overall cesarean birth risk, cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status and labor arrest were individually analyzed. Results: Of an estimated 76.7 million delivery hospitalizations, 21.5 million were excluded according to the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine definition, and 14.7 million were excluded according to additional criteria. Of the estimated 40 517 867 deliveries included, 12.1% (4 885 716 deliveries) were by cesarean delivery. Cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for the procedure increased from 9.7% to 13.9% between 2000 and 2009, plateaued, and then decreased from 13.0% to 11.1% between 2012 and 2019. The AAPC for cesarean delivery was 6.4% (95% CI, 5.2% to 7.6%) from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009 (95% CI, -1.2% to 3.7%), and -2.2% from 2009 to 2019 (95% CI, -2.7% to -1.8%). Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased from 3.4% of all deliveries in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019 (AAPC, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7% to 2.5%). Cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a peak of 4.8% in 2009 before decreasing to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries for labor arrest increased during the first half of the study (2000-2009) for the active phase (from 1.5% to 2.1%), latent phase (from 1.1% to 1.5%), and second stage (from 0.9% to 1.3%) and then decreased from 2010 to 2019, from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage. Conclusions and Relevance: Cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean birth appeared to decrease over the latter years of the study period, with cesarean deliveries for labor arrest becoming less common.
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.