Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance

Giulia M. Muraca and Neda Razaz
CMAJ August 19, 2019 191 (33) E923; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72687
Giulia M. Muraca
Postdoctoral fellow, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neda Razaz
Postdoctoral fellow, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In their CMAJ article, Korb and colleagues1 investigated the important and complex issue of cesarean delivery and subsequent severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM). Observational studies comparing maternal and perinatal outcomes following vaginal and cesarean delivery have been criticized for inappropriate comparison groups and the inability to address confounding by indication. Despite efforts to overcome these challenges, the study by Korb and colleagues1 is compromised by these same issues and, consequently, the results need to be interpreted with caution.

First, comparing outcomes following successful vaginal and cesarean deliveries is misleading with respect to causal inference. Risks of an outcome across 2 interventions can be contrasted meaningfully only if those who received one intervention were candidates for receiving the other intervention. This is known as the principle of exchangeability,2 which dictates that both groups should be exchangeable with respect to an outcome had they been subjected to the identical exposure.3 However, a successful vaginal delivery is impossible for a substantial proportion of women who deliver by cesarean. To address this limitation, in 2006 the National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on cesarean delivery recommended that all future research comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes following vaginal and cesarean delivery be based on planned vaginal versus planned cesarean delivery.4 Korb and colleagues1 applied this approach in a sensitivity analysis (Appendix 71); however, the absence of a significant association between cesarean delivery and SAMM among the 3 subgroups of women aged less than 25, 25–29 and 30–34 years (80% of the study population) was not discussed. Instead, the authors emphasized the finding of increased SAMM following planned cesarean delivery among older women (those aged 35 years and older). Nevertheless, there was no information describing the subgroups of women with respect to key demographic and clinical characteristics (e.g., parity and body mass index) or whether women may have had a specific reason for planning a cesarean versus vaginal delivery, and this makes the validity and generalizability of the subgroup analysis unclear.

Second, although this study attempted to address confounding by indication with propensity score analysis, the indications for intervention were not quantified and, hence, not included in the propensity score. For example, no distinction was made for emergency cesarean delivery, which is invariably unplanned and therefore indicated owing to fetal or maternal reasons. In fact, all intrapartum cesarean deliveries are unplanned and indeed indicated. Furthermore, it is plausible that this unmeasured confounding by indication increased with maternal age and manifested more prominently in older women.

A clearly formulated research question and a sound understanding of confounding and the temporal sequence between exposure, outcome and factors in the causal pathway are crucial for assessing causal associations. Unfortunately, since the study by Korb and colleagues1 did not satisfy these research imperatives, the clinical relevance of their results is questionable.

Providers of maternity care should inform women about the maternal and perinatal risks associated with both cesarean and vaginal delivery, and ultimately, the balance between these risks will dictate the use of obstetric interventions.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Korb D,
    2. Goffinet F,
    3. Seco A,
    4. et al
    . Risk of severe maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery and the role of maternal age: a population-based propensity score analysis. CMAJ 2019;191: E352–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Greenland S,
    2. Robins JM
    . Identifiability, exchangeability and confounding revisited. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2009;6:4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Hernán MA
    . A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:265–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    NIH state-of-the-science conference statement: cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27–29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1386–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (33)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 33
19 Aug 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance
Giulia M. Muraca, Neda Razaz
CMAJ Aug 2019, 191 (33) E923; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72687

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance
Giulia M. Muraca, Neda Razaz
CMAJ Aug 2019, 191 (33) E923; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72687
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Risk of severe maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery and the role of maternal age: a population-based propensity score analysis
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A safe return to sport and the right to play during COVID-19
  • Simple-language tool to guide patients in recovery after prolonged treatment in the intensive care unit
  • The authors respond to: “Delayed discharge and frailty, delirium and functional decline”
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire