Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/111238
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth
Author: Dodd, J.
Crowther, C.
Grivell, R.
Deussen, A.
Citation: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017; 2017(7):CD004906-1-CD004906-13
Publisher: Wiley
Issue Date: 2017
ISSN: 1469-493X
1469-493X
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Rosalie M Grivell, Andrea R Deussen
Abstract: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy, two options are available for her care: an elective repeat caesarean and planned induction of labour. Although risks and benefits are associated with both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies, and studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias. Consequently, any conclusions based on results of these studies are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section versus a policy of induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth who require induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy. Primary outcomes include success of induction of labour, need for caesarean section, maternal and neonatal mortality, and maternal and neonatal morbidity.We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (31 May 2017) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies.Randomised controlled trials with reported data on comparison of outcomes in mothers and babies between women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section and women who planned induction of labour when a previous birth was performed by caesarean. Cluster trials and quasi-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion. We would consider trials published only as abstracts if they provided enough information to meet review inclusion criteria.We performed no data extraction. For future updates, if randomised controlled trials are identified, two review authors will independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and will extract data and check extracted data for accuracy. Review authors will assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Review authors identified no randomised controlled trials.Both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices has been drawn from non-randomised studies, which are associated with potential bias. Therefore, any results and conclusions presented must 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.
Keywords: Humans; Cesarean Section, Repeat; Labor, Induced; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean; Pregnancy; Female; Elective Surgical Procedures
Rights: Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RMID: 0030073296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub5
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/399224
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.