Table 3 Main findings of studies included in the systematic review
From: Caesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancy interval: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Study | Main Findings | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
Eijsink et al., 2008 [32] | Median IPI: Elective CS breech (22mths), Emergency CS (18 mths), Vaginal breech (16 mths), Reference [home birth] (18 mths) | In women with a breech delivery, a longer IPI among the elective CS group was reported, however there were only 35 women in this group |
Zdeb et al., 1984 [33] | Median IPI in mths: 21.8 | No significant difference in the timing of subsequent pregnancies among the two groups |
#Tower et al., 2000 [17] | Median BI (IQR) in mths: CS failure to progress (32, 23–45); CS fetal distress (34, 25–46); SVD (32, 23–44) | No evidence that women delivering by Caesarean section have significantly longer waiting times to next pregnancy or birth |
Median IPI (IQR) in mths: CS failure to progress (28, 22–40); CS fetal distress (31, 24–44); SVD (29, 22–39) | ||
Hemminki, 1987 [37] | BI: Subsequent pregnancy within 5 years 1973 cohort- RR (0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 0.93); 1976 cohort RR (0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 1.12) | Proportion of women with a previous Caesarean section less likely to have a subsequent delivery, although no significant difference found |
LaSala, 1987 [35] | BI: CS delivery (5.5%) >2 years without conceiving; vaginal delivery (1.4%) >2 years without conceiving | Women with a previous Caesarean were less likely to have a subsequent birth and took longer to conceive than women with a previous vaginal delivery. However the sample size was very small |
Hemminki et al., 1985 [36] | Median BI (mths): CS delivery (44.4); vaginal delivery (45.6) | No significant difference in waiting time to next birth among women with a previous Caesarean section compared to women with a previous vaginal delivery |