ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Effect of previous caesarean section on reproductive and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High live birth rates after laparoscopic isthmocele repair in infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Cesarean Scar Pregnancy and Subsequent Obstetric Outcomes: Focus on Postpartum Hemorrhage and Predictive Factors.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- The effect of previous caesarean delivery on cumulative live birth rate in IVF/ICSI cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Temporal trend and factors of C-section and its impact on subsequent pregnancy outcomes in Central China.Frontiers in medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pregnancies following previous caesarean section (CS) are associated with higher incidence of infections, postpartum haemorrhage and obstetric complications. The present study aimed to explore the effect of previous CS on reproductive, maternal and neonatal outcomes in women who underwent assisted reproductive techniques (ART). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess reproductive and pregnancy outcomes following ART in women with and without a previous CS. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Eligible language articles written in English, published up to October 2023, were identified in Medline, Google Scholar and Science Direct databases. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A total of 19 articles, reporting on 13 different outcomes met the inclusion criteria. It was revealed that women with previous CS had 9% lower clinical pregnancy rates, 13% lower live birth rates, 11% lower implantation rates and 28% lower multiple pregnancy rates compared with women who had prior natural vaginal deliveries. Additionally, previous CS was associated with an 8-fold higher risk of difficult embryo transfers. No significant differences were noted in ectopic pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates or biochemical pregnancy rates. The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that previous CS is associated with decreased prospects of clinical pregnancy, live birth and successful embryo implantation during ART. The findings of the present study underscored the need to counsel women with prior CS regarding its potential impact on ART outcomes.
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.