MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386424425 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.033

Operative delivery in the second stage of labor and preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4386424425 on OpenAlexaff
Abirami Kirubarajan, Nila Thangavelu, Misgav Rottenstreich, Giulia M. Muraca

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPregnancyObstetricsPreterm deliverySystematic reviewStage (stratigraphy)MEDLINEFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify the association between mode of operative delivery in the second stage of labor (cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery) and spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science: Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from database inception to April 1, 2023.Study Eligibility CriteriaAll retrospective cohort studies with participants who had a second-stage cesarean delivery (defined as intrapartum cesarean delivery at full cervical dilation) or operative vaginal delivery (including forceps- and/or vacuum-assisted delivery) and that reported the rate of preterm birth (either spontaneous or not specified) in subsequent pregnancy were included.MethodsBoth a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed. A meta-analysis was performed for dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and used the odds ratio as an effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s 2022 Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure tool.ResultsAfter screening 2671 articles from 7 databases, a total of 18 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 605,138 patients were included. The pooled rates of spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy were 6.9% (12 studies) after second-stage cesarean delivery and 2.6% (8 studies) after operative vaginal delivery. A total of 7 studies encompassing 75,460 patients compared the primary outcome of spontaneous preterm birth after second-stage cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery in an index pregnancy with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.57–2.58) in favor of operative vaginal delivery. However, most studies did not include important confounding factors, did not address exposure misclassification because of failed operative vaginal delivery, and considered operative vaginal delivery as a homogeneous category with no distinction between forceps- and vacuum-assisted deliveries.ConclusionAlthough a synthesis of the existing literature suggests that the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is higher in those with a previous second-stage cesarean delivery than in those with operative vaginal delivery, the risk of bias in these studies is very high. Findings should be interpreted with caution. This study aimed to quantify the association between mode of operative delivery in the second stage of labor (cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery) and spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy. MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science: Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from database inception to April 1, 2023. All retrospective cohort studies with participants who had a second-stage cesarean delivery (defined as intrapartum cesarean delivery at full cervical dilation) or operative vaginal delivery (including forceps- and/or vacuum-assisted delivery) and that reported the rate of preterm birth (either spontaneous or not specified) in subsequent pregnancy were included. Both a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed. A meta-analysis was performed for dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and used the odds ratio as an effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s 2022 Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure tool. After screening 2671 articles from 7 databases, a total of 18 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 605,138 patients were included. The pooled rates of spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy were 6.9% (12 studies) after second-stage cesarean delivery and 2.6% (8 studies) after operative vaginal delivery. A total of 7 studies encompassing 75,460 patients compared the primary outcome of spontaneous preterm birth after second-stage cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery in an index pregnancy with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.57–2.58) in favor of operative vaginal delivery. However, most studies did not include important confounding factors, did not address exposure misclassification because of failed operative vaginal delivery, and considered operative vaginal delivery as a homogeneous category with no distinction between forceps- and vacuum-assisted deliveries. Although a synthesis of the existing literature suggests that the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is higher in those with a previous second-stage cesarean delivery than in those with operative vaginal delivery, the risk of bias in these studies is very high. Findings should be interpreted with caution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207