ReviewAJOG global reports2024
The use of bubble charts in analyzing the global second-stage cesarean delivery rates: a systematic review.
Review in AJOG global reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Improving capacity for advanced training in obstetric surgery: evaluation of a blended learning approach.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the worldwide second-stage cesarean delivery rate concerning pre-second-stage cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal birth rates. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline Ovid, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were queried from inception to February 2023, with the following terms: "full dilatation," "second stage," and "cesarean," with their word variations. Furthermore, an additional cohort of 353,434 cases from our recently published study was included. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only original studies that provided sufficient information on the number of pre-second-stage cesarean deliveries, second-stage cesarean deliveries, and vaginal births were included for the calculation of different modes of delivery. Systemic reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports were excluded.
methodsStudy identification and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Selected studies were categorized on the basis of parity, study period, and geographic regions for comparison.
resultsA total of 25 studies were included. The overall pre-second-stage cesarean delivery rate, the second-stage cesarean delivery rate, and the second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio were 17.94%, 2.65%, and 0.19, respectively. Only 5 studies described singleton, term, cephalic presenting pregnancies of nulliparous women, and their second-stage cesarean delivery rates were significantly higher than those studies with cohorts of all parity groups (4.50% vs 0.83%;
conclusionThe overall worldwide pre-second-stage cesarean delivery rate was 17.94%, the second-stage cesarean delivery rate was 2.65%, and the second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio was 0.19. The African studies had the highest second-stage cesarean delivery rate (5.14%) and second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio (1.88), whereas the studies from East Asia and South Asia were opposite (0.94% and 0.11, respectively).
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.