Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41282016›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Duration of labor stages and pregnancy outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean: a retrospective comparative analysis.

Tianying Zhu, Dan Luo, Yan Li, Liling Xiong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tianying ZhuChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Dan LuoChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yan LiChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Liling XiongChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to characterize the labor duration distribution and evaluate maternal-neonatal outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) under epidural anesthesia. Method: In this retrospective comparative study, we analyzed 156 term singleton VBAC cases with epidural anesthesia at Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital (January 2021-December 2024), matched 1:1 by age to nulliparous controls. Comparative analyses of baseline characteristics, pregnancy complications, delivery modes, pregnancy outcomes, and labor durations were performed using independent Results: Demonstrated that VBAC cases had significantly higher median 24 h postpartum blood loss (330 vs. 250 mL), postpartum hemorrhage rates (43% vs. 20%), and neonatal NICU admission rates (10% vs. 2%) compared to nulliparous controls (all Conclusion: These results suggest that VBAC under epidural anesthesia may progress faster through first and second stages of labor than nulliparous deliveries but carries higher risks of adverse outcomes. Clinical management should integrate multifactorial assessment, warranting further investigation into labor patterns and outcome relationships.

Indexed as

epidural anesthesialabor durationpostpartumhemorrhagepregnancy outcomesvaginal birth after cesarean

Identifiers

PMID41282016
PMCPMC12631239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.