ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Evaluating the impact of a trial of labor after cesarean section on labor duration: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCesarean section (C-section) rates are increasing globally, and repeated C-sections are associated with increased maternal morbidity. Trial of labor after C-section (TOLAC) is an approach to reduce the recurrence of C-sections. However, limited research exists on the impact of cesarean scars on labor duration in TOLAC, considering the termination of labor through C-section and selection bias. This study aimed to investigate the impact of cesarean scars on labor duration in TOLAC participants, accounting for potential confounding factors and biases.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 2,964 women who attempted vaginal birth at a single center in Japan from 2012 to 2021. The study categorized participants into TOLAC (n = 187) and non-TOLAC (n = 2,777) groups. Propensity scores were calculated based on 14 factors that could influence labor duration, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for labor duration, with and without IPTW adjustment. Sensitivity analyses used propensity score matching, bootstrapping, and interval censoring to address potential biases, including recall bias in the reported onset of labor.
resultsThe unadjusted HR for labor duration in the TOLAC group compared to the non-TOLAC group was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.98, P = 0.027), indicating a longer labor duration in the TOLAC group. After adjusting for confounding factors using IPTW, the HR was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.74-1.30, P = 0.91), suggesting no significant difference in labor duration between the groups. Sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching, bootstrapping, and interval censoring yielded consistent results. These findings suggested that the apparent association between TOLAC and longer labor duration was because of confounding factors rather than TOLAC itself.
conclusionsAfter adjusting for confounding factors and addressing potential biases, cesarean scars had a limited impact on labor duration in TOLAC participants. Maternal and fetal characteristics may have a more substantial influence on labor duration.
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.