ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
"Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVaginal Birth After Cesarean is a clinical measure that can reduce repeated cesarean deliveries, improve perinatal outcomes and shorten hospital stays. However, successful practice of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean remains restricted in the Middle East due to limited regional-specific guidelines. This study aimed to identify the predictors and maternal and neonatal outcomes of failed Vaginal Birth After Cesarean among a group of Middle Eastern women.
methodsA retrospective case-control design was conducted between January 2023 and February 2024 across three hospitals in Oman. The case group involved failed Vaginal Birth After Cesarean requiring repeat cesarean, while the control group comprised successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Additionally, logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify significant predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean.
resultsData of 364 participants were analyzed. The predictors of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean failure were high body mass index (32.66 ± 7.53; p < .001), low parity (median = 1; p < .001), low cervical dilation (2 cm vs. 4 cm; p < .001), obstetric complications (42.6% vs. 29.2%; p = .010), and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (16.3% vs. 6.9%; p = .006). Postpartum hemorrhage (21.6% vs. 4.6%; p < .001), scar tenderness (11.5% vs. 0.5%; p < .001), and low APGAR scores (p < .001) were more common in the case group.
conclusionsThe study findings advance the regional literature with critical information supporting the development of standardized Middle Eastern specific Vaginal Birth After Cesarean guidelines. Higher body mass index, lower parity, lower cervical dilation at admission, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and obstetric complications are significant predictors of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean failure. A failed Vaginal Birth After Cesarean attempt may increase the risks of post-partum hemorrhage, scar tenderness, and lower APGAR scores. Future research may prioritize prospective multicenter studies across diverse regions of the Middle East to validate the Vaginal Birth After Cesarean predictive variables.
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.