ArticlePloS one2023
Comparing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in primary caesarean delivery during first versus second-stage of labour in Kenya: An institution-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second stage versus first stage intrapartum cesarean delivery and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in Southern Ethiopia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs caesarean delivery rates continue to increase globally, so are the number of second-stage caesarean deliveries. Second-stage caesareans may carry additional risk of complications for both the mother and fetus owing to fetal head impaction into the maternal pelvis and manipulations required for delivery. So far, data on this procedure's outcomes from low resource countries are limited.
objectivesTo compare adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between second-stage and first-stage of labour intrapartum primary caesarean deliveries over 12 months at a tertiary referral obstetric hospital in Kenya.
methodsIn a hospital-based cohort study, 222 women with singleton, cephalic presenting fetuses at term gestation who had intrapartum primary caesarean delivery during active labour were recruited post-partum. Second-stage caesarean deliveries (73) were compared to 149 first-stage caesarean deliveries. The proportion of caesarean deliveries in the second-stage of labour was estimated and the adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2022 at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Eldoret.
resultsThe proportion of second-stage caesarean deliveries among intrapartum primary caesarean deliveries was 4.3% [95% CI: 2.9% - 4.7%]. Compared to first-stage caesarean deliveries, second-stage caesarean deliveries had a significantly higher risk of adverse maternal outcomes (RR 3.272, 95% CI 2.28-4.71, P < 0.001), including intraoperative trauma, atony, blood transfusion, and a postoperative hospital stay of more than three days. Additionally, there was a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (RR 2.748, 95% CI 2.45-4.50, P < 0.001), including increased risk of a 5-min APGAR ≤3, admission to NBU, and neonatal death.
conclusionsAn increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes is associated with primary second-stage caesarean deliveries compared to primary first-stage caesarean deliveries.
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.