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
Review
. 2025 Apr 30:83:103212.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212. eCollection 2025 May.

Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Virginia Diaz  1 , Celina Gialdini  1   2 , Mónica Chamillard  1 , Julia Pasquale  1 , Guillermo Carroli  1 , Maria Regina Torloni  3 , Ana Pilar Betran  4
Affiliations
Review

Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Virginia Diaz et al. EClinicalMedicine. .

Abstract

Background: The use of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing to unprecedented levels worldwide. As with any surgery, it has risks, and understanding the evidence base for interventions involved in a CS is essential to optimise outcomes and inform recommendations. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to summarise the evidence on medical procedures used in CS.

Methods: Searches were conducted in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACSs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions from database inception to January 31, 2024, with an updated search performed on January 24, 2025. We included SRs of RCTs that examined the effectiveness and safety of medical procedures used in CS. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).

Findings: We identified 29 SRs (15 Cochrane and 14 non-Cochrane) published between 2002 and 2024 involving 408 unique RCTs including over 116,000 participants. Most reviews included trials from low- and middle-income countries (n = 21, 72.4%), combined both elective and emergency CS (n = 19, 65.5%), and were of high quality (n = 18, 62%), while 24.3% (n = 7) were of low and 13.7% (n = 4) were of critically low quality. The SRs presented 512 procedure-outcome comparisons (271 procedure versus procedure, 241 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 350 comparisons (68.4%), clear evidence of benefit for 97 (18.9%), possible benefit for 48 (9.3%), clear or possible no difference of effect for 9 (1.8%), clear evidence of harm for 4 (0.8%) and possible harm for 4 (0.8%). We found no SRs for 13 pre-specified procedures. Indwelling bladder catheter and its immediate removal, vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution, antibiotic prophylaxis, early oral intake, and abdominal binders are associated with benefits for some outcomes. There are no SRs on post-CS wound care, stitch removal, or time to resume sexual or physical activity, among others.

Interpretation: There are numerous gaps in the available evidence on medical procedures used in CS that require additional research. There is an urgent need for international recommendations to guide healthcare providers and policymakers in ensuring safer, evidence-based, care for women undergoing CS.

Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Keywords: Caesarean section; Maternal health; Medical; Public health; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the process of identification and selection of systematic reviews on medical procedures for caesarean section.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Betran A.P., Ye J., Moller A.B., Souza J.P., Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6) doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Betrán A.P., Ye J., Moller A.B., Zhang J., Gülmezoglu A.M., Torloni M.R. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016;11(2) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Albarqouni L., Abukmail E., MohammedAli M., et al. Low-value surgical procedures in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Betrán A.P., Temmerman M., Kingdon C., et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–1368. - PubMed
    1. Haas D.M., Morgan S., Contreras K., Enders S. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution before cesarean section for preventing postoperative infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;(7) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007892.pub6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources