ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Predictive factors for emergency cesarean section in grand multiparous compared to primiparous and multiparous women.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify predictive factors for emergency cesarean section (CS) in grand multiparous women and compare them with primiparous and multiparous women.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in a single large university-affiliated tertiary medical center between 2011 and 2018, analyzing all women with singleton pregnancies that resulted in live births (n = 74 848). Women were grouped into three categories: primiparous (PP, first birth), multiparous (MP, 2-4 births), and grand multiparous (GMP, ≥5 births). Delivery characteristics and indications for emergency CS were analyzed. Univariate analyses assessed associations between potential risk factors and mode of delivery, stratified by gestational age (37-39 weeks and ≥40 weeks). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with emergency CS in each group.
resultsProportion of emergency CS and its indications across parity groups. Emergency CS rates were significantly higher in the PP group (13.2%) than in the MP (9.4%) and GMP (6.5%) groups (P < 0.001). In stratified univariate analysis, emergency CS was significantly associated with advanced maternal age, higher body mass index (BMI), non-spontaneous conception, diabetes, and artificial rupture of membranes in both gestational age subgroups. Non-reassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR) was the leading indication for emergency CS in GMP women (71.1%), followed by failure to progress (21.0%), suspected placental abruption (4.4%), suspected uterine rupture (2.6%), and failed instrumental delivery (0.9%). Multivariable analysis identified the following factors as significantly associated with increased risk of emergency CS: assisted reproductive technology (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.88-2.32), prolonged latency >12 h post-rupture of membranes (aOR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.85-2.34), smoking (aOR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.26-1.75), and diabetes (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.32-1.62).
conclusionGrand multiparous women had a lower risk of emergency CS than primiparous and multiparous women. Non-reassuring fetal heart rate was the most common indication for emergency CS. Assisted reproductive technology (ART), prolonged rupture of membranes (ROM) latency, smoking, and diabetes were independent predictors of emergency CS.
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.