Choose your font:
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Source Sans Pro


[Valid RSS] RSS

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 3059 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

Created on : 30 Mar 2006
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Induction of labour for women with a previous Caesarean birth: a systematic review of the literature. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Oct;44(5):392-5.

Author(s) :

Dodd J, Crowther C.

Year of publication :


URL(s) :…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

AIMS: To compare the benefits and harms of planned elective repeat Caesarean section with induction of labour and to assess different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labour for women with a previous Caesarean birth who require induction of labour in a subsequent pregnancy.

METHODS: The Cochrane controlled trials register and MEDLINE (1966-current) were searched using the following terms: vaginal birth after C(a)esare(i)an, trial of labo(u)r, elective C(a)esare(i)an, C(a)esare(i)an repeat, induction of labo(u)r, prostaglandins, prostaglandin E(2), misoprostol, prostaglandin E(1) analogs, mifepristone, oxytocin, Syntocinon, randomis(z)ed controlled trial, randomis(z)ed trial and clinical trial, to identify all published randomised controlled trials with reported data comparing outcomes for women and infants who have a planned elective repeat Caesarean section with induction of labour; and different methods of induction of labour, where a prior birth was by Caesarean section.

RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified where women with a prior Caesarean birth, whose labour required induction in a subsequent pregnancy, compared elective repeat Caesarean section with induction of labour. There were three randomised controlled trials identified in which women with a prior Caesarean section were allocated to different methods of induction of labour - vaginal prostaglandin E(2) versus intravenous oxytocin; mifepristone versus placebo; and vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin. These studies varied considerably in the methods used and meta-analysis was not appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of safety information for induction of labour agents in the women with a scarred uterus, and caution should be exercised in their use.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ vaginal birth after caesarean ; c-section/caesarean ; evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; induction of labor ; misoprostol (Cytotec) ; oxytocin ; post-term pregnancy ; scars

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 30 Mar 2006

Discussion (display only in English)
➡ Only identified users

 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)


New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact


This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR,
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE,
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase) for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth