ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Comparative analysis of uterine flora in pregnant women undergoing elective and non-elective caesarean section of central Uttar Pradesh, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
Context: The incidence rate of puerperal infection caused by uncommon pathogenic bacteria has risen. Thus, we sought to analyse uterine flora in patients of elective and non-elective caesarean section. Aims: (1) To compare uterine flora in elective and non-elective caesarean section. (2) To find the association of puerperal infection and neonatal sepsis with selected variables. Settings and Design: Prospective cohort study. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 elective and 150 non-elective caesarean cases were selected. Intraoperatively, soon after birth, a uterine swab and a placental tissue sample were collected and sent for bacterial culture testing. In addition to the uterine and placental findings, sociodemographic parameters were recorded and compared. Statistical Analysis Used: Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Results: Positive uterine cultures were detected in 8.67% of elective and 21.33% of non-elective caesarean sections. Positive placental culture was found in 5.33% of elective and 12.00% of non-elective cases. Conclusions: Collecting routine intrauterine cultures during elective and non-elective caesarean sections will be effective for detecting the type of bacteria and treatment. It will be better to counsel the patient for opting elective caesarean section prior to the onset of labour.
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.