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
. 2021 Jan 28;11(1):e042076.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042076.

Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries

Ilir Hoxha  1   2   3 , Esra Zhubi  3 , Krenare Grezda  3 , Blerta Kryeziu  2 , Jeta Bunjaku  3 , Fitim Sadiku  3 , Riaz Agahi  2 , Daniel Adrian Lungu  4 , Manila Bonciani  4 , George Little  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries

Ilir Hoxha et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals.

Setting: Over 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020.

Participants: Women at birth. Over 18.5 million births.

Intervention: Caesarean section.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons.

Results: In adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics.

Conclusions: With smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends.

Prospero registration number: CRD42020158437.

Keywords: obstetrics; public health; statistics & research methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flow diagram of review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adjusted ORs of caesarean section.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Crude ORs of caesarean section.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Biccard BM, Madiba TE, Kluyts H-L, et al. . Perioperative patient outcomes in the African surgical outcomes study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 2018;391:1589–98. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30001-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, et al. . Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:1025–25. 10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.55 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Appropriate technology for birth. The Lancet 1985;326:436–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. WHO, HRP . WHO statement on cesarean section rates 2015.
    1. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, et al. . WHO statement on caesarean section rates. BJOG 2016;123:667–70. 10.1111/1471-0528.13526 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources