The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean Section
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: In an attempt to reduce the rate of cesarean section, obstetricians now offer a trial of labor to pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean section. Although a trial of labor is usually successful and is relatively safe, few studies have directly addressed the maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with this method of delivery. METHODS: We performed a population-based, longitudinal study of 6138 women in Nova Scotia who had previously undergone cesarean section and had delivered a singleton live infant in the period from 1986 through 1992. RESULTS: A total of 3249 women elected a trial of labor, and 2889 women chose to undergo a second cesarean section. There were no maternal deaths. The overall rate of maternal morbidity was 8.1 percent; 1.3 percent had major complications (a need for hysterectomy, uterine rupture, or operative injury) and 6.9 percent had minor complications (puerperal fever, a need for blood transfusion, or abdominal-wound infection). Although the overall rate of maternal complications did not differ significantly between women who chose a trial of labor and the women who elected cesarean section (odds ratio for the trial-of-labor group, 0.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.1), major complications were nearly twice as likely among women undergoing a trial of labor (odds ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.0). Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, and perinatal mortality were similar among the infants whose mothers had a trial of labor and those whose mothers underwent elective cesarean section. CONCLUSION: Among pregnant women who have had a cesarean section, major maternal complications are almost twice as likely among those whose deliveries are managed with a trial of labor as among those who undergo an elective second cesarean section.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery
Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., Leveno, K. J., Spong, C. Y., Leindecker, S., Varner, M. W., Moawad, A. H., Caritis, S. N., Harper, M., Wapner, R. J., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040405 · Cited by 1,286
Risk of Uterine Rupture during Labor among Women with a Prior Cesarean Delivery
Lydon-Rochelle, M., Holt, V. L., Easterling, T. R., & Martin, D. P. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200107053450101 · Cited by 932
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery
(2019) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003078 · Cited by 530
(2002) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e548362006-001 · Cited by 517
Landon, M. B., Leindecker, S., Spong, C. Y., Hauth, J. C., Bloom, S., Varner, M. W., Moawad, A. H., Caritis, S. N., Harper, M., Wapner, R. J., et al. (2005) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.05.066 · Cited by 464
Metadata
- Authors
- McMahon, M. J., Luther, E. R., Bowes, W. A., & Olshan, A. F.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1996-09-05
- Volume
- 335
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 689-695
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2022655964
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean Section. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199609053351001
- The paper
- McMahon, M. J., Luther, E. R., Bowes, W. A., & Olshan, A. F. (1996). Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean Section. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199609053351001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.