ArticleO&G open2026
Hospital Variation in Labor After Cesarean and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean in Massachusetts, 2012-2022.
Article in O&G open, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo examine variation in labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) across hospitals and to assess the role of hospital characteristics in explaining this variation.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using data from the Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System from 2012 to 2022; hospital characteristics were constructed with data from the Massachusetts Center for Healthcare Information and Analytics and the Neonatology Solutions NICU Directory. The sample included 80,094 births to individuals 18 years of age or older with one prior cesarean and a singleton birth at 34-42 weeks without a clear contraindication to vaginal birth. Outcomes were labor after cesarean and VBAC among those with labor after cesarean. For each outcome, we estimated three multilevel logistic regression models with a random intercept for hospital: Model 1 was an empty model without covariates; model 2 added individual characteristics; and model 3 added hospital characteristics to Model 2.
resultsOf 80,094 births across 47 hospitals, 31.1% had labor after cesarean, and among these, 65.2% resulted in VBAC. For labor after cesarean, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.239, indicating that in the empty model, 23.9% of the unexplained variation was at the hospital level. Adding individual characteristics to the model explained 2.4% of between-hospital variation, whereas adding hospital characteristics to the model explained 61.6% of between-hospital variation relative to the empty model. For VBAC among those with labor after cesarean, between-hospital variation was substantially lower than for labor after cesarean, but a large proportion of the variation was explained by adding hospital characteristics to the model.
conclusionThis study reveals how hospital characteristics explain a substantial share of the variation in labor after cesarean and some of the variation in VBAC. The remaining variation demonstrates differences in performance that may require understanding more about hospital unit culture and processes to fully understand; this warrants further study. Interventions targeting hospital service structure and culture may reduce barriers to labor after cesarean and promote equitable access, ultimately resulting in higher labor after cesarean and VBAC rates.
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.