Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37334251›Full record

ArticleAJOG global reports2023

Postpartum recovery of nulliparous women following scheduled cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery: a prospective observational study.

Yusuke Mazda, Kazuo Ando, Azusa Kato, Shohei Noguchi, Takayasu Sugiyama, Kotaro Hizuka, Azusa Nagai, Yusuke Ikeda, Daisuke Sakamaki, Nan Guo and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJOG global reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yusuke MazdaDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Kazuo AndoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Drs Ando, Guo, Carvalho, and Sultan).
Azusa KatoDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Shohei NoguchiDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Takayasu SugiyamaDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Kotaro HizukaDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Azusa NagaiDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Yusuke IkedaDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Daisuke SakamakiDepartment of Obstetric Anesthesiology, Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Japan (Drs Mazda, Kato, Noguchi, Sugiyama, Hizuka, Nagai, Ikeda, and Sakamaki).
Nan GuoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Drs Ando, Guo, Carvalho, and Sultan).
Brendan CarvalhoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Drs Ando, Guo, Carvalho, and Sultan).
Pervez SultanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Drs Ando, Guo, Carvalho, and Sultan).
Social Insurance Saitama Chuo Hospital · JPStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInpatient postpartum recovery trajectories following cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery are underexplored.

objectiveThis study primarily aimed to compare recovery following cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery in the first postpartum week, and secondarily to evaluate psychometrically the Japanese version of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 scoring tool. STUDY

designFollowing institutional review board approval, the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level) questionnaire and a Japanese version of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 measure were used to evaluate inpatient postpartum recovery in uncomplicated nulliparous parturients delivering via scheduled cesarean delivery or spontaneous vaginal delivery.

resultsA total of 48 and 50 women who delivered via cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery, respectively, were recruited. Women delivering via scheduled cesarean delivery experienced significantly worse quality of recovery on days 1 and 2 compared with those who had spontaneous vaginal delivery. Quality of recovery significantly improved daily, plateauing at days 4 and 3 for cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery groups, respectively. Compared with cesarean delivery, spontaneous vaginal delivery was associated with prolonged time to analgesia requirement, decreased opioid consumption, reduced antiemetic requirement, and reduced times to liquid/solid intake, ambulation, and discharge. Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10-Japanese is a valid (correlates with the EQ-5D-3L including a global health visual analog scale, gestational age, blood loss, opioid consumption, time until first analgesic request, liquid/solid intake, ambulation, catheter removal, and discharge), reliable (Cronbach alpha=0.88; Spearman-Brown reliability estimate=0.94; and intraclass correlation coefficient=0.89), and clinically feasible (98% 24-hour response rate) measure.

conclusionInpatient postpartum recovery is significantly better in the first 2 postpartum days following spontaneous vaginal delivery compared with scheduled cesarean delivery. Inpatient recovery is largely achieved within 4 and 3 days following scheduled cesarean delivery and spontaneous vaginal delivery, respectively. Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10-Japanese is a valid, reliable, and feasible measure of inpatient postpartum recovery.

Indexed as

cesarean deliverynulliparouspatient-reported outcome measurepostpartum recoveryvaginal delivery

Identifiers

PMID37334251
PMCPMC10276254
OpenAlexW4377137067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.