ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Crash caesarean section audit: an important tool for an obstetric unit to ensure safe quality care.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrash caesarean section (CCS) aims to achieve delivery within 30 min of decision in potentially life-threatening situations for mother, baby or both but is not without risk. Auditing CCS in any unit providing surgical delivery is important to ensure compliance with the recommended guideline while ensuring validity of indication for surgery and maintaining safe care. Here we present the results of a retrospective audit of CCS in a busy tertiary maternity unit in Singapore looking at the DDI and validity for surgery and reporting on outcomes.
methodMaternal demographics and antenatal details of mothers delivered by CCS in the preceding 4 weeks, collected from the patient's electronic medical records, along with perinatal events leading to the CCS were presented at a monthly meeting attended by obstetricians of all grades. The decision to delivery interval (DDI) was noted and management scored with respect to appropriateness of operative indication from 1 (appropriate) - 3 (not appropriate). The outcome of cases with a score > 1.5 was scrutinised for areas of care which might have had a negative impact on final outcome.
resultsOne hundred and forty-eight CCS were identified. Twenty-one cases (14.2%) scored > 1.5. All CCS were performed within the recommended 30 min with a mean of 10.2 min. There were 15 maternal complications, 1 birth injury and 4 perinatal deaths. The top 3 indications for surgery were non-reassuring fetal status (83/148), cord prolapse (15/148) and placental abruption (10/148). Sixty-eight babies were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), 36 to the special care nursery (SCN) and 49 went to the general ward.
conclusionRegular audit of CCS for DDI and validity of surgical indication with the inclusion of perinatal outcomes is an important tool in improving quality of care ensuring compliance with guidelines while maintaining safety of care by identification and correction of deficiencies.
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.