ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integrating real-time polling into modified Delphi methodology: lessons from a consensus study on cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- What Should Be Discussed When Considering a Vaginal Birth? A Delphi Consensus Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Women's perspectives of decision-making for labour and birth: a qualitative antenatal-postnatal paired interview study.BMJ open · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a caesarean birth core information set. Caesareans are the most common surgery performed in many countries. Women need information for informed decision-making and consent. Core information sets (CISs) provide baseline information, agreed upon by parents and clinicians, for discussion before a procedure.
designTwo-phase consensus study using modified Delphi.
settingUnited Kingdom, 2024. SAMPLE: People planning a pregnancy/currently pregnant/new parents and maternity professionals.
methodsPhase 1: Long-list of information points identified from 273 systematic reviews, 50 patient leaflets, three pre-existing qualitative studies and a stakeholder survey (n = 230); Operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire comprising 11 information points with 108 items. Phase 2: Think-aloud interviews (n = 9) informed questionnaire restructure into information about planned caesarean birth, unplanned caesarean birth (within 72 h) and emergency caesarean birth (EMCB; ≤ 30 min), followed by two-round Delphi survey and consensus meetings.
resultsN = 360 participated in the Delphi survey Round 1. All items were carried forward, and three were added for Round 2 (n = 188/56.4% attrition rate). From Round 2, one item was removed, 73 included and 37 items no-consensus. Free-text responses identified an unmet need for a postnatal EMCB-CIS. Over four meetings (n = 36) consensus was reached for an antenatal-caesarean-birth-CIS (14 points), EMCB-CIS (5 points) and a postnatal EMCB-CIS (12 points).
conclusionsThis study has established three caesarean birth CISs to support informed decision-making discussions between women and clinicians: (1) an antenatal CIS for planned and unplanned caesareans when there is time for discussion in clinic; (2) a one-page CIS for emergency caesarean birth (within 30 min) when there is little time for discussion; (3) and a postnatal CIS for use after an unplanned caesarean birth before hospital discharge.
trial registrationCOMET Initiative | Development of a core information set for caesarean birth (comet-initiative.org).
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.