The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section
Open accessAbstract
Objective To evaluate the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women who have had a delivery by caesarean section. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, HealthSTAR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, reference lists, and national experts. Studies in all languages were eligible if published in full. Review methods Methodological quality was evaluated for each study by using criteria from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Uterine rupture was categorised as asymptomatic or symptomatic. Results We reviewed 568 full text articles to identify 71 potentially eligible studies, 21 of which were rated at least fair in quality. Compared with elective repeat caesarean delivery, trial of labour increased the risk of uterine rupture by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 4.73) per 1000 cases. No maternal deaths were related to rupture. For women attempting vaginal delivery, the additional risk of perinatal death from rupture of a uterine scar was 1.4 (0 to 9.8) per 10 000 and the additional risk of hysterectomy was 3.4 (0 to 12.6) per 10 000. The rates of asymptomatic uterine rupture in trial of labour and elective repeat caesarean did not differ significantly. Conclusions Although the literature on uterine rupture is imprecise and inconsistent, existing studies indicate that 370 (213 to 1370) elective caesarean deliveries would need to be performed to prevent one symptomatic uterine rupture.
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
Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews
Hayden, J. A., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 · Cited by 1,452
Justus Hofmeyr, G., Say, L., & Metin Gülmezoglu, A. (2005) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x · Cited by 379
Ng, B., Chu, A., & Khan, M. M. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002468 · Cited by 301
Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: A prospective study in The Netherlands
Kwee, A., Bots, M. L., Visser, G. H. A., & Bruinse, H. W. (2006) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.06.012 · Cited by 282
Risks of Adverse Outcomes in the Next Birth After a First Cesarean Delivery
Kennare, R., Tucker, G., Heard, A., & Chan, A. (2007) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000250469.23047.73 · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Guise, J.-M., McDonagh, M. S., Osterweil, P., Nygren, P., Chan, B. K. S., & Helfand, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-07-01
- Volume
- 329
- Issue
- 7456
- Pages
- 19
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2114276938
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.329.7456.19
- The paper
- Guise, J.-M., McDonagh, M. S., Osterweil, P., Nygren, P., Chan, B. K. S., & Helfand, M. (2004). Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7456.19
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.