ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Does a larger estimated fetus compared with prior birthweight increase the risk of cesarean delivery after a prior vaginal birth?
Article in Archives of gynecology 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
purposeTo evaluate whether an increase in estimated fetal weight (EFW) relative to the birthweight of a prior vaginal delivery is associated with intrapartum cesarean delivery (CD) or other adverse obstetric outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with two consecutive term singleton deliveries (2014-2025). All had a vaginal first delivery and underwent a trial of labor in the second pregnancy. Patients were categorized by the difference between EFW and prior birthweight: higher (> 15%) and similar (-15% to 15%). The primary outcome was intrapartum CD. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. Subgroup analysis stratified by EFW (< 3500 vs. ≥ 3500 g) evaluated the effect of absolute fetal size.
resultsThe primary analysis included 2849 patients: 2265 in the similar-weight group and 584 in the higher-weight group. The crude intrapartum CD rate was higher in the higher-weight group (5.3% vs 3.0%, p = 0.006). After adjustment, weight difference was not independently associated with CD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.43; 95% CI 0.91-2.27; p = 0.12). In subgroup analysis, among patients with EFW ≥ 3500 g, a trend toward increased CD risk was observed in the higher-weight group (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 0.94-2.99, p = 0.08).
conclusionAn increase in EFW relative to prior birthweight was not independently associated with intrapartum CD among patients with a prior vaginal delivery. Among patients with larger absolute EFW, a non-significant trend toward increased intrapartum CD risk was observed, a finding that warrants future investigation. These findings suggest that interpregnancy weight differences alone should not guide delivery planning in otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies.
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.