ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
The effect of previous caesarean delivery on cumulative live birth rate in IVF/ICSI cycles.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of women's caesarean delivery history on IVF/ICSI success by evaluating the cumulative live birth rate per treatment cycle.
methodsA total of 4724 parous patients receiving conventional IVF/ICSI treatment were retrospectively analyzed; patients were divided into the caesarean section delivery group (CS, N = 1415) and the vaginal delivery group (VD, N = 3309) according to whether patients had a previous caesarean section history. According to the presence of caesarean scar defect (PCSD), patients in the CS group were categorized into the previous caesarean scar defect subgroup (PCSD, N = 302) and the non-PCSD subgroup (non-PCSD, N = 1113). Propensity score (PS) matching and the generalized linear model (GLM) were used to adjust for potential confounding factors.
resultsThe cumulative live birth rates in the VD group and CS group were similar both before (60.4% vs. 58.4%, P = 0.219) and after (57.8% vs. 58.4%, P = 0.761) PS matching, and there was also no significant difference in the cumulative live birth rates of patients in PCSD, non-PCSD, VD group, and VD-matched group. Subgroup analysis on patients with different prognoses, age, ovarian response, and BMI also showed that there was no significant difference in cumulative live birth rates in subgroups. Cox regression analysis with adjustments made for important covariates and potential confounding factors showed that there was no significant difference in cumulative live birth rates both in the VD group and CS group before and after PS matching.
conclusionPrevious caesarean delivery history may not impact cumulative live birth rate when compared to patients with previous vaginal delivery in IVF/ICSI cycles.
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.