Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39948390›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for caesarean delivery among multiparous women.

Nigus Bililign Yimer, Eskedar Getie Mekonnen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nigus Bililign YimerDepartment of Midwifery, College of Health Sciences, Woldia University, Woldia, Ethiopia. nigusb27@gmail.com.
Eskedar Getie MekonnenSchool of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While caesarean risk prediction models exist for nulliparous and high-risk pregnancies, there is a lack of models that predict the risk of caesarean delivery among multiparous women. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model for caesarean delivery and assess its clinical utility among multiparous women. Using data from 460 participants, a prediction model was developed to predict the risk of caesarean delivery. The model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plot, and the model was internally validated using bootstrapping technique. A simplified risk score was calculated, and a nomogram was developed for the individual caesarean delivery risk guide. Additionally, a decision curve analysis was performed to assess the clinical utility of the model. The final model included four predictors: maternal age, previous caesarean delivery, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and antepartum hemorrhage. The model had an AUC of 78.0% (95% CI 71.1-84.8), indicating good discrimination capacity. The model also exhibited good calibration and a low overoptimism coefficient, indicating minimal risk of overfitting. The risk prediction model has good clinical utility for discriminating multiparous women at risk of caesarean delivery. The tool can guide clinicians in estimating the risk of caesarean delivery among multiparous women that could lead to improved maternal and neonatal outcomes, ultimately enhancing the quality of care delivered in low-resource settings.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionParityAdultArea Under CurveFemaleHumansMaternal AgeNomogramsPregnancyRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveCaesarean deliveryDecision curveInternal validationMultiparousNomogramPrediction model

Identifiers

PMID39948390
PMCPMC11825932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.