ReviewCureus2025
Mode of Birth and Specific Learning Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In many countries, including Greece, cesarean section (CS) birth rates have exceeded globally accepted levels and the European average, raising concerns about health risks. CS has been linked to adverse outcomes in children, including obesity, metabolic disorders, type 1 diabetes, and neurodevelopmental conditions. Some research suggests lower cognitive performance in CS-born children compared to vaginally born peers. However, the connection between CS and specific learning disabilities (SLDs) remains unexplained and has yet to be clarified. This systematic review aims to assess studies exploring the potential link between CS and SLDs. A systematic search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect from inception to January 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD 42022383362). Relevant keywords were used to identify observational studies, and the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist was employed to assess methodological quality. From 1,921 screened titles and abstracts, 219 studies were selected for full-text review, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies used registry data, with some employing interviews or validated tests. Eight studies suggested CS as a possible risk factor for SLDs, but after adjusting for confounders, only two showed statistically significant results. Some studies lacked adjustments, and two studies highlighted the distinction between elective and emergency CS as a potential confounder. Given the limited number of studies and the variability in their findings, the evidence remains inconsistent in supporting a potential association between CS and SLDs. Future research should adopt a multidisciplinary diagnostic approach and emphasize the use of validated tools for diagnosing SLDs, account for confounding variables, and distinguish between elective and emergency CS procedures.
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.