Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Aug 27:13:165.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-165.

Caesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancy interval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Caesarean delivery and subsequent pregnancy interval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sinéad M O'Neill et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: Caesarean delivery has increased worldwide, however, the effects on fertility are largely unknown. This systematic review aims to compare subsequent sub-fertility (time to next pregnancy or birth) among women with a Caesarean delivery to women with a vaginal delivery.

Methods: Systematic review of the literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane Library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge (1945 - October 2012), using detailed search-strategies and reference list cross-checking. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies were included. Two assessors reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles using standardised data abstraction forms and assessed study quality.

Results: 11 articles were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, of these five articles which adjusted for confounders were combined in a meta-analysis, totalling 750,407 women using fixed-effect models. Previous Caesarean delivery was associated with an increased risk of sub-fertility [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.86, 0.93]. Subgroup analyses by parity [primiparous women: OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87, 0.96; not limited to primiparous women: OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73, 0.90]; by publication date (pre-2000: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68, 0.94; post-2000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86, 0.94); by length of follow-up (<10 years: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90; >10 years: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96); by indication for mode of delivery (specified: 0.92, 95% CI 0.88, 0.97; not specified: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); by cohort size (<35,000: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67, 0.92; >35,000: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.95), by definition of sub-fertility used divided into (birth interval [BI]: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; inter-pregnancy interval [IPI]: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85, 0.97; and categorical measures: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73, 0.90); continuous measures: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96) were performed. Results of the six studies not included in the meta-analysis (which did not adjust for confounders) are presented individually.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis shows an increased waiting time to next pregnancy and risk of sub-fertility among women with a previous Caesarean delivery. However, included studies are limited by poor epidemiological methods such as variations in the definition of time to next pregnancy, lack of confounding adjustment, or details of the indication for Caesarean delivery. Further research of a more robust methodological quality to better explore any underlying causes of sub-fertility and maternal intent to delay childbearing is warranted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection. Flow chart of identification and selection of studies for inclusion in the systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Caesarean section and subsequent sub-fertility. Fixed-effect model of the relationship between Caesarean delivery and subsequent sub-fertility (time to next pregnancy or birth) compared to vaginal delivery from five published studies including 750,407 women.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot. Funnel plot assessing publication bias in the relationship between Caesarean delivery and subsequent sub-fertility (time to next pregnancy or birth) compared to vaginal delivery from five published studies.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Ford JB, Todd AL, Morris JM. Pathways to a rising caesarean section rate: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001725. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Orfali K. Beyond Numbers: The Multiple Cultural Meanings of Rising Cesarean Rates Worldwide. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(7):54–56. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.680544. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lavender T, Hofmeyr G, Neilson J, Kingdon C, Gyte G. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004660.pub2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. ICHSC. The Information Centre for Health and Social Care. England: Maternity Statistics; 2009–10 Publication date: November 18th 2010.
    1. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: 2010–2011. Pediatr. 2013;131(3):548–558. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3769. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types