Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

J. M. Dodd, C. A. Crowther, E. Huertas, Jeanne-Marie Guise, D. Horey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean, 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. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section with a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean section for women with a previous caesarean birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (24 June 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), and PubMed (1966 to 24 June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 a vaginal birth, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned vaginal birth after caesarean section 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 vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Repeat Cesarean Section
Parturition
Vaginal Birth after Cesarean
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cesarean Section
Family Planning Services
PubMed
Libraries
Cohort Studies

Cite this

Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. / Dodd, J. M.; Crowther, C. A.; Huertas, E.; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Horey, D.

In: Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online), No. 4, 2004.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{964fccaf77aa4dc080f8c32c96d033a7,
title = "Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean, 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. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section with a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean section for women with a previous caesarean birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (24 June 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), and PubMed (1966 to 24 June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 a vaginal birth, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned vaginal birth after caesarean section 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 vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.",
author = "Dodd, {J. M.} and Crowther, {C. A.} and E. Huertas and Jeanne-Marie Guise and D. Horey",
year = "2004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "The Cochrane database of systematic reviews",
issn = "1361-6137",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

AU - Dodd, J. M.

AU - Crowther, C. A.

AU - Huertas, E.

AU - Guise, Jeanne-Marie

AU - Horey, D.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - BACKGROUND: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean, 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. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section with a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean section for women with a previous caesarean birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (24 June 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), and PubMed (1966 to 24 June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 a vaginal birth, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned vaginal birth after caesarean section 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 vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

AB - BACKGROUND: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth, there are two options for her care in a subsequent pregnancy: planned elective repeat caesarean or planned vaginal birth. While there are risks and benefits for both planned elective repeat caesarean birth and planned vaginal birth after caesarean, 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. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section with a policy of planned vaginal birth after caesarean section for women with a previous caesarean birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (24 June 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), and PubMed (1966 to 24 June 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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 a vaginal birth, where a previous birth had been by caesarean. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned vaginal birth after caesarean section 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 vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921705445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921705445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15495090

AN - SCOPUS:84921705445

JO - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

SN - 1361-6137

IS - 4

ER -