Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40370583›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.

Virginia Diaz, Celina Gialdini, Mónica Chamillard, Julia Pasquale, Guillermo Carroli, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Virginia DiazCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Celina GialdiniCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Mónica ChamillardCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Julia PasqualeCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Guillermo CarroliCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales (CREP), Rosario, Argentina.
Maria Regina TorloniObstetrics Post-Graduate Program, Department of Obstetrics, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Pilar BetranUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing to unprecedented levels worldwide. As with any surgery, it has risks, and understanding the evidence base for interventions involved in a CS is essential to optimise outcomes and inform recommendations. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to summarise the evidence on medical procedures used in CS. Methods: Searches were conducted in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACSs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions from database inception to January 31, 2024, with an updated search performed on January 24, 2025. We included SRs of RCTs that examined the effectiveness and safety of medical procedures used in CS. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306). Findings: We identified 29 SRs (15 Cochrane and 14 non-Cochrane) published between 2002 and 2024 involving 408 unique RCTs including over 116,000 participants. Most reviews included trials from low- and middle-income countries (n = 21, 72.4%), combined both elective and emergency CS (n = 19, 65.5%), and were of high quality (n = 18, 62%), while 24.3% (n = 7) were of low and 13.7% (n = 4) were of critically low quality. The SRs presented 512 procedure-outcome comparisons (271 procedure versus procedure, 241 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 350 comparisons (68.4%), clear evidence of benefit for 97 (18.9%), possible benefit for 48 (9.3%), clear or possible no difference of effect for 9 (1.8%), clear evidence of harm for 4 (0.8%) and possible harm for 4 (0.8%). We found no SRs for 13 pre-specified procedures. Indwelling bladder catheter and its immediate removal, vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution, antibiotic prophylaxis, early oral intake, and abdominal binders are associated with benefits for some outcomes. There are no SRs on post-CS wound care, stitch removal, or time to resume sexual or physical activity, among others. Interpretation: There are numerous gaps in the available evidence on medical procedures used in CS that require additional research. There is an urgent need for international recommendations to guide healthcare providers and policymakers in ensuring safer, evidence-based, care for women undergoing CS. Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Indexed as

Caesarean sectionMaternal healthMedicalPublic healthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40370583
PMCPMC12076788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.