↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004906.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dodd, Jodie M, Crowther, Caroline A

Abstract

When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy, there are two options for her care: elective repeat caesarean or planned induction of labour. While there are risks and benefits for both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies. Studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias and consequently conclusions based on these results are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution. To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 January 2012). Randomised controlled trials with reported data that compared outcomes in mothers and babies who planned a repeat elective caesarean section with outcomes in women who planned induction of labour, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. There was no data extraction performed. There were no randomised controlled trials identified. Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are both associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices is drawn from non-randomised studies, associated with potential bias. Any results and conclusions must therefore be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 29%