ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
May the indication for a previous cesarean section affect the outcome at trial of labor in women with induction of labor? A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- May the indication for a previous cesarean section affect the outcome at trial of labor in women with induction of labor? A retrospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCesarean sections are increasing worldwide and are associated with altered risks of complications for both mother and child. Vaginal birth after cesarean section is associated with lower maternal and neonatal morbidity than in repeat cesarean section. Only a few studies have considered the indication for the previous cesarean section to be of importance for the outcome of subsequent labor. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the indication for a previous cesarean section affects the outcomes at a subsequent delivery in women with induction of labor. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study of the four largest delivery units in Stockholm during 2012-2015 included 1150 women with one previous cesarean section with induction of labor. INCLUSION CRITERIA: women with induced labor and a previous cesarean section, singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, gestational age of ≥34 weeks. The women were grouped by indication for the previous cesarean section. PRIMARY OUTCOME: mode of delivery (vaginal birth after previous cesarean section or repeat cesarean section). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: induction to delivery time, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine rupture. Neonatal outcomes: birth weight, Apgar score <7, arterial umbilical cord blood gas pH <7.0.
resultsOur study found that the indication of labor dystocia at the previous cesarean section, increased the risk of repeat cesarean section (aOR 5.35; 95% CI: 1.64-17.50) in women with induction of labor. Other risk factors for repeat cesarean section were birth weight >4000 g, maternal BMI ≥30 or if vaginal prostaglandin was used as the method for induction of labor. A previous vaginal delivery and use of oxytocin increased the chance of a vaginal delivery in this group of women.
conclusionsOur study showed that the indication for the previous cesarean section affects the outcome in the subsequent delivery in women with induction of labor. If the indication for the previous cesarean section was labor dystocia, the risk of repeat cesarean section was increased.
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.