Impact of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Is there an association between a Caesarean section and subsequent fertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most studies report that fertility is reduced after Caesarean section compared with vaginal delivery. However, studies with a more robust design show smaller effects and it is uncertain whether the association is causal. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A previous systematic review published in 1996 summarizing six studies including 85 728 women suggested that Caesarean section reduces subsequent fertility. The included studies suffer from severe methodological limitations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing subsequent reproductive outcomes of women who had a Caesarean section with those who delivered vaginally. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Searches of Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Maternity and Infant Care databases were conducted in December 2011 to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared the subsequent fertility outcomes after a Caesarean section and after a vaginal delivery. Eighteen cohort studies including 591 850 women matched the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. The meta-analysis was based on a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether the estimated effect was influenced by parity, risk adjustment, maternal choice, cohort period, and study quality and size. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The impact of Caesarean section on subsequent pregnancies could be analysed in 10 studies and on subsequent births in 16 studies. A meta-analysis suggests that patients who had undergone a Caesarean section had a 9% lower subsequent pregnancy rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.87, 0.95)] and 11% lower birth rate [RR 0.89, 95% CI (0.87, 0.92)], compared with patients who had delivered vaginally. Studies that controlled for maternal age or specifically analysed primary elective Caesarean section for breech delivery, and those that were least prone to bias according to the NOS reported smaller effects. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is significant variation in the design and methods of included studies. Residual bias in the adjusted results is likely as no study was able to control for a number of important maternal characteristics, such as a history of infertility or maternal obesity. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Further research is needed to reduce the impact of selection bias by indication through creating more comparable patient groups and applying risk adjustment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,046 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».