ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Mode of delivery in chorioamnionitis: impact on neonatal and maternal outcomes.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of mode of delivery in chorioamnionitis on neonatal outcomes is unclear. This retrospective cohort study compares the rate of early onset neonatal sepsis between vaginal delivery and cesarean section.
methodsSingleton pregnancies at greater than 24 + 0 weeks gestation with live birth and clinically-diagnosed chorioamnionitis from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 were included. Cases with multiple gestations, terminations or histological chorioamnionitis alone were excluded. Rates of early onset neonatal sepsis, select secondary neonatal outcomes and a composite outcome of maternal infectious morbidity were compared using propensity score weighting. Subgroup analysis was done by indication for cesarean section.
resultsAfter chart review, 378 cases were included with 197 delivering vaginally and 181 delivering via cesarean section. The groups differed on age, parity, hypertension, renal disease, gestational age, corticosteroid use, magnesium sulfate use, presence of meconium and percentage meeting Gibbs criteria before propensity score weighting. Rate of early onset neonatal sepsis was greater in the cesarean section group (13.8% versus 3.1%, adjusted risk difference 8.3% [3.5-13.1], p < 0.001). Secondary neonatal outcomes were similar between groups. When compared by indication, the rate of early onset neonatal sepsis was greater in the cesarean section for abnormal fetal surveillance group compared to vaginal delivery but not in the cesarean section for other reasons group. Adjusted rates of secondary neonatal outcomes did not differ between groups. The rate of maternal infectious morbidity was greater with cesarean section. (13.8% versus 1.5% [adjusted risk difference 13.0% [7.1-18.9], p < 0.0001). No other difference in maternal secondary outcomes was identified.
conclusionsThe rate of early onset neonatal sepsis was highest in the cesarean section group, particularly in those with abnormal fetal surveillance. Fetuses affected by or vulnerable to sepsis likely have a greater need for cesarean section.
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.