ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Impact of scheduled cesarean sections on non-working days on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of performing scheduled cesarean sections for term singleton pregnancies on working versus non-working days on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included women who underwent scheduled cesarean sections for term singleton pregnancies at our hospital between January and December 2024. Participants were divided into working-day and non-working-day groups based on the date of surgery. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1 nearest neighbor matching, caliper width 0.2 times the propensity score standard deviation) balanced confounding factors, including maternal age, gestational age, parity, prior cesarean deliveries, conception method, hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). After matching, we compared postoperative fever, neonatal transfer, surgery-related outcomes, and umbilical cord blood gas parameters between the groups. Multivariable linear regression analysis was additionally performed to adjust for residual confounding. Staffing configurations for obstetrics, anesthesia, neonatology, and nursing during working and non-working days are detailed in the Methods section. Results: Among the 300 women enrolled, 100 remained in each group after matching (all standardized mean differences <0.1). Matched analysis revealed no significant between-group differences in postoperative fever, neonatal transfer, surgical blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, antibiotic duration, or umbilical cord pH and lactate levels ( Conclusion: In this single-center setting with standardized staffing, no statistically significant differences in short-term adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes were detected between scheduled cesarean sections performed on working and non-working days in this study population and based on the available sample size.
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.