ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2025
Outcome of trial of labour after one previous cesarean section at Federal Medical Centre, Bida, north central, Nigeria.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 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
Objective: To determine the success rate and feto-maternal outcomes following trial of labor among women with one previous cesarean section (C/S) seen at the Federal Medical Centre, Bida, Nigeria. Material and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study among selected women with a previous C/S admitted for trial of labor after C/S over a 15 month period. Demographic and medical history data was collected by questionnaire. Women achieving vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and those undergoing emergency repeat C/S (ERCS) were compared statistically for differences and associations based on a range of variables. Results: A total of 150 women with one previous C/S were included. Out of 150 study participants, 105 (70.0%) achieved VBAC while 45 (30.0%) had ERCS. Women with previous vaginal delivery had higher odds of achieving VBAC. Poor progress of labor was the most common indication for ERCS (17/45; 37.8%). The most frequent maternal complication following abdominal delivery was post-partum hemorrhage (n=15; 33.3%) while perineal laceration (n=26;24.8%) was the commonest among women who achieved VBAC. The ERCS cohort suffered significantly more complications in comparison to those who had VBAC. Comparison of fetal outcomes by mode of delivery were comparable, except that neonates admitted into special care baby unit were more likely to have been born via ERCS (odds ratio 5.231; 95% confidence interval 1.247-21.950) compared to those born via VBAC. There was no perinatal or maternal mortality. However, one case of ruptured uterus was recorded. Conclusion: These results demonstrated that good outcome following trial of labour is achievable among well selected women, even in low resource settings.
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.