Risk of Maternal Postpartum Readmission Associated With Mode of Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cesarean and operative vaginal deliveries are associated with an increased risk of maternal rehospitalization compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted by using the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstract Database between 1997/1998 and 2000/2001, which included 900,108 women aged 15-44 years with singleton live births (after excluding several selected obstetric conditions). RESULTS: A total of 16,404 women (1.8%) were rehospitalized within 60 days after initial discharge. Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery (rate 1.5%), cesarean delivery was associated with a significantly increased risk of postpartum readmission (rate 2.7%, odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-1.9); ie, there was 1 excess postpartum readmission per 75 cesarean deliveries. Diagnoses associated with significantly increased risks of readmission after cesarean delivery (compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery) included pelvic injury/wounds (rate 0.86% versus 0.06%, OR 13.4, 95% CI 12.0-15.0), obstetric complications (rate 0.23% versus 0.08%, OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.6-3.5), venous disorders and thromboembolism (rate 0.07% versus 0.03%, OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.1-3.4), and major puerperal infection (rate 0.45% versus 0.27%, OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6-1.9). Women delivered by forceps or vacuum were also at an increased risk of readmission (rates 2.2% and 1.8% versus 1.5%; OR forceps: 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-1.5; OR vacuum: 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3, respectively). Higher readmission rates after operative vaginal delivery were due to pelvic injury/wounds, genitourinary conditions, obstetric complications, postpartum hemorrhage, and major puerperal infection. CONCLUSION: Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, and operative vaginal delivery increase the risk of maternal postpartum readmission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".