Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42720092›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026

Planned cesarean section or attempted vaginal delivery: Which is more environmentally friendly? An observational life cycle assessment study in France.

Sherazade Jaafar, Sayed Gillani, Sophie Cordier, Charles Garabedian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sherazade JaafarDepartment of Obstetrics, CHU Lille, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4339-8270
Sayed GillaniPrimum Non Nocere, Béziers, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1098-1638
Sophie CordierPrimum Non Nocere, Béziers, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4844-7397
Charles GarabedianDepartment of Obstetrics, CHU Lille, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2105-9784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile the health sector is known to contribute significantly to environmental degradation, little is known about the specific ecological footprint of childbirth. We thus aimed to compare the environmental impacts of attempted vaginal delivery and planned cesarean section (c-section), and to identify opportunities for improvement. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe performed a life cycle assessment to quantify 16 environmental impact indicators from vaginal and c-section deliveries. Data were collected at Lille University Hospital in 2024. Hotspot analyses were undertaken to identify the most impactful stages within each scenario.

resultsAttempted vaginal delivery consistently had a lower environmental impact compared with planned c-section, the carbon footprints of which were 23.2 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO

conclusionsAttempted vaginal delivery is more environmentally sustainable compared with planned c-section. Perinatal health professionals should incorporate environmental considerations into clinical and public health decision-making, and should engage in other efforts to reduce this sector's contributions to climate change.

Indexed as

carbon footprintchildbirthdelivery modeenvironmental sustainabilityhealthcare impactlife cycle assessment

Identifiers

PMID42720092
PMCPMC13559929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.