ReviewEClinicalMedicine2024
Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Surgical site infections after caesarean section across sub-Sahara Africa: a scoping review of prevalence and associated factors.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Return to routine household and community functions following uncomplicated caesarean delivery: ultra-short versus traditional hospital-stay; a randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Maternal complications within six weeks after primary caesarean section in Ghana: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Comparison of the outcomes of cephalo-caudal to transverse uterine expansion in primary caesarean section: a study protocol for randomized controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Postoperative Pain Control After Cesarean Section by Continuous Infusion Pump System Versus Ropivacaine Hydrogel: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association of cesarean delivery with time to pregnancy and risk of subsequent spontaneous abortion: A retrospective cohort study in China.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Uterine closure after cesarean delivery: surgical technique, biological rationale, and clinical implications.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Review
- Financial and regulatory interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: An updated scoping review.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Reducing post-cesarean sepsis: Current best practice in prevention and treatment.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Contributing to Adhesive Disease Following Primary Cesarean Section: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Complex cesarean section: Surgical approach to reduce the risks of intraoperative complications and postpartum hemorrhage.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Avoidable severe morbidity from wound dehiscence after cesarean section: Practice and experience from a tertiary referral hospital in a low-income setting, Tanzania-a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS. Methods: Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306). Findings: The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes. Interpretation: Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps. Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).
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.