ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2023
Study of Caesarean Section Births in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Mumbai Using Robson Classification System.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 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.
- Robson Caesarean Calc© App: A User-Friendly Tool for Healthcare Providers.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robson ten-group classification system is recommended by WHO (World health organization) as a global standard for assessment and monitoring caesarean section (CS) rates. This classification is simple and robust. It is prospective, easily reproducible and clinically relevant. Methodology: We conducted a prospective observational study of CS births at a tertiary care institute. Caesarean births in a tertiary care hospital were classified using Robson classification system as recommended by WHO. The study was conducted for period of 6 months duration. The ethics committee of the institute approved this study. We enrolled 4771 consecutive women who delivered during this study period. We included patients who had vaginal delivery as well as those who had delivery by CS. Both live births and stillbirths (of at least 500-g birth weight or at least 22 weeks gestation (according to WHO recommendations) were included in this study. Results: During this study period, we had 4771 deliveries, out of which 2231 pregnant women (46.76%) were delivered by CS as compared to 2540 vaginal deliveries. Women with previous CS (term with single cephalic pregnancy) were included in Robson group 5. Group 5 had the highest CS rate (13.41%). Robson group 5, 1 and 10 were the largest contributors to the high CS rates at our institute. Conclusion: In our study, 4771 deliveries were conducted during this study period (6 months). Out of 4771 deliveries, CS was done in 2231 pregnant women (46.76%). 2540 women had vaginal deliveries. Group 5 (13.41%) which comprised of women with previous CS had the highest CS rate followed by group 1 and group 10. The second largest contribution was from Group 1 with CS rate of 9.01%. Robson Group 1 included nulliparous term women with single cephalic pregnancy in spontaneous labour. Group 10 was the third largest contributor to the overall CS. Group 10 included women who delivered preterm (single cephalic presentation). Group 10 contributed to 8.09% of overall CS rate. We should make every effort to provide CS for women requiring this procedure, rather than work towards achieving a specific rate for CS.
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.