ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Current practices in caesarean section training: A cross-sectional study comparing high- and low-middle-income countries.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of educational practices in caesarean section training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study identifies and describes global caesarean section (CS) training practices, comparing high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).
methodsA convergent parallel mixed-methods study was conducted with a cross-sectional survey. The survey was distributed through professional networks and social media. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
resultsA total of 411 participants from 42 countries were included, with 42% (172) representing HIC and 58% (239) LMIC. Most participants were working in obstetrics and gynecology as specialists (52%, 214) or trainees (26%, 107). Participants from LMIC performed more CS annually, with a mean of 138 (±221) cases, compared to those from HIC with 44 (±64) cases (P < 0.001). Most were taught by an apprenticeship model (75%, 310). Feedback practices were predominantly informal, reported by 64% (263), while formal competence assessment was reported by 22% (38/172) of HIC participants and 9% (21/239) from LMIC (P < 0.001). Participants from LMIC completed fewer supervised cases compared to their HIC counterparts, with a median of 10 (interquartile range 5-20) compared to 50 (interquartile range 30-100) (P < 0.001). LMIC participants reported a higher incidence of major complications or mortality during training: 11% (24/202) versus 3% (3/120). Seventy percent (174/250) of the participants advocated for a formal training program for CS, suggesting that it could improve the quality and safety of CS.
conclusionThe study highlights current practices and differences in CS training in LMIC and HIC. The outcomes associated with CS are influenced by multiple patient- and system-level factors, including access to care, patient risk profiles, and resources. However, training remains an essential and modifiable component, which, according to participants in this study, could be strengthened by incorporating evidence-based educational practices.
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.