ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Humanizing Birth in a Third-Level Hospital: Revealing the Benefits of Natural Cesarean Sections.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of the effects of multimodal intervention measures on the recovery of postpartum women after cesarean section.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEfforts to humanize childbirth focus on promoting skin-to-skin contact, labor accompaniment, and breastfeeding. Despite these advancements, cesarean sections often lack a consideration of immediate mother-child contact, early breastfeeding initiation, and follow-up. This underscores the need for a 'natural' approach to cesarean sections, aiming to 'humanize' the procedure and emulate some aspects of vaginal birth. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted, involving pregnant women scheduled for a cesarean section. Two comparison groups were established: one undergoing conventional cesarean sections and the other receiving a humanization intervention. While in "conventional cesarean sections," newborns are separated from mothers at birth, preventing actions such as early breastfeeding or skin-to-skin contact, and maternal companionship is lacking in the operating room, the intervention of cesarean section humanization was based on avoiding the separation of the mother and newborn, promoting skin-to-skin contact, early breastfeeding, and maternal accompaniment during surgery. Descriptive data on maternal and neonatal variables, including breastfeeding initiation, maintenance, and baby weight trends, were collected. Additionally, a validated survey assessed the pain, satisfaction, and anxiety among the 73 participating women.
resultsWomen undergoing natural cesarean sections reported higher satisfaction, lower anxiety, and reduced postoperative pain, requiring less analgesia. Although their exclusive breastfeeding rates at 10 days postpartum showed no significant difference, statistically significant differences favored natural cesarean sections at 3 months (67.5% vs. 25%) and 6 months (50% vs. 4.5%). Neonates in the natural cesarean group exhibited greater weight gain at 10 days postpartum compared to those delivered conventionally (+49.90 g vs. -39.52 g). No significant differences in blood counts were observed between the groups.
conclusionsThis study underscores the manifold advantages offered by the natural cesarean procedure compared to the conventional cesarean approach. Notably, a NC demonstrates superior outcomes in terms of heightened maternal satisfaction with the obstetric process, the enhanced sustainability of exclusive breastfeeding, and augmented neonatal weight gain.
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.