Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38541721›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Humanizing Birth in a Third-Level Hospital: Revealing the Benefits of Natural Cesarean Sections.

Paula Recacha-Ponce, Pablo Baliño Remiro, Laura García-Rayo-Reolid, Violeta Dominguez-Gomez, María Pilar Suárez-Alcázar, Ana Folch-Ayora, Pablo Salas-Medina, Eladio Joaquin Collado-Boira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paula Recacha-PonceFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2092-8212
Pablo Baliño RemiroFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.
Laura García-Rayo-ReolidCastellon General University Hospital, 12004 Castello de la Plana, Spain.
Violeta Dominguez-GomezCastellon General University Hospital, 12004 Castello de la Plana, Spain.
María Pilar Suárez-AlcázarFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5556-6007
Ana Folch-AyoraFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0210-6162
Pablo Salas-MedinaFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5894-0650
Eladio Joaquin Collado-BoiraFaculty of Health Sciences, Jaime I University, 12071 Castello de la Plana, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8062-4152
Universitat Jaume I · ESHospital General Universitari de Castelló · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

breastfeedingmidwiferynatural cesarean sectionwell-being of infantswell-being of mothers

Identifiers

PMID38541721
PMCPMC10972057
OpenAlexW4392926502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.