ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Analysis and trends of caesarean sections using Robson's classification over 7-year period at a rural teaching hospital.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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.
- Comfort or necessity: obstetricians' perspectives on the drivers, consequences, and recommendations for reducing caesarean section rates in Turkey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Robson Caesarean Calc© App: A User-Friendly Tool for Healthcare Providers.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Review
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
Background: A ten-group classification system of caesarean section was proposed by Michael Robson in 2001. It is helpful in comparing the rates of caesarean section between hospitals. The objective of this study was to determine the caesarean section rates to analyse trends of caesarean section and classify according to Robson's categories. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 2016 to 2022. A total of 3176 women who underwent caesarean section were grouped under Robson's ten-group classification system. Results: The most common group was Group 5 (All multiparous women with at least one previous uterine scar, with single cephalic pregnancy, ≥37 weeks gestation) followed by Group 2 (Nulliparous women, with single cephalic pregnancy, >37 weeks gestation who either had labour induced or were delivered by caesarean section before labour). Results were obtained for the specified period (from 2016 to 2022), and Group 5 contributes more to the total CS rates (45% in 2016, 46% in 2017, 46% in 2018, 57% in 2019, 49% in 2020, 52% in 2021, 54% in 2022), followed by Group 2 (20% in 2016, 17% in 2017, 18% in 2018, 19% in 2019, 26% in 2020, 24% in 2021, 24% in 2022). Conclusion: Pregnant women with prior uterine scars contribute more to caesarean section rates according to Robson's categories. Hence, strategies must be implemented to lower the primary caesarean section rates.
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.