ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
In-Depth Analysis of Caesarean Section Rate in the Largest Secondary Care-Level Maternity Hospital in Latvia.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is no surgical intervention without risk. A high rate of caesarean sections (CSs) impacts on maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. For optimisation of the CS rate, regular monitoring is necessary. In 2015, the World Health Organization recommended the Robson classification as a global standard for assessing, monitoring, and comparing CS rates. We analysed all births in 2019 in the Riga Maternity Hospital-a secondary-level monodisciplinary perinatal care hospital in Latvia-according to the Robson classification, seeking to identify which groups make the biggest contribution to the overall CS rate. In total, 5835 women were included. The overall CS rate was 21.5%. In our study, the largest contributors to the overall CS rate were as follows: Group 5 (33.3%); Group 2 (20.8%); and Group 1 (15.6%). The results of our deeper analysis of individual groups (Group 1 and 5) from our study may help to develop targeted interventions for specific subgroups of the obstetric population, effectively reducing both the overall rate of CS and the number of unnecessary CSs performed. The CS rate reduction strategy should be based on decreasing CSs in Group 1 and encouraging VBAC, thus decreasing the number of women undergoing two or more CSs in future.
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.