Are you Rosalind Janik?

Claim your profile

Publications (5)10.63 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence on trial of labor (TOL) and vaginal delivery rates in women with a prior cesarean and to understand the characteristics of women offered a trial of labor. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, DARE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles evaluating mode of delivery for women with a prior cesarean delivery published between 1980 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they involved human participants, were in English, conducted in the United States or in developed countries, and if they were rated fair or good base on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The search yielded 3,134 abstracts: 69 full-text papers on TOL and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates and 10 on predictors of TOL. The TOL rate in U.S. studies was 58% (95% CI [52, 65]) compared with 64% (95% CI [59, 70]) in non U.S. studies. The TOL rate in the U.S. was 62% (95% CI [57, 66]) for studies completed prior to 1996 and dropped to 44% (95% CI [34, 53]) in studies launched after 1996, p = .016. In U.S. studies, 74% (95% CI [72, 76]) of women who had a TOL delivered vaginally. Women who had a prior vaginal birth or delivered at a large teaching hospital were more likely to be offered a TOL. CONCLUSIONS: Although the TOL rate has dropped since 1996, the rate of vaginal delivery after a TOL has remained constant. Efforts to increase rates of TOL will depend on patients understanding the risks and benefits of both options. Maternity providers are well positioned to provide key education and counseling when patients are not informed of their options.
    Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 07/2012; · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Obstetric Anesthesia Digest 01/2011; 31(3):159-160.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate existing vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) screening tools and to identify additional factors that may predict VBAC or failed trial of labor. Relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and the Cochrane databases (1980-September 2009), and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, web sites, and experts. Inclusion criteria limited studies to those of humans, written in English, studies conducted in the United States and developed countries, and those rated good or fair quality by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Studies of individual predictors were combined using a random effects model when the estimated odds ratios were comparable across included studies. We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers, of which 203 met inclusion criteria and were quality-rated. Twenty-eight provided evidence on predictors of VBAC and 16 presented information on scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor). Six of the 11 scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor) were validated by separated dataset, cross-validation, or both. Whereas accuracy remained high across all models for predicting VBAC, with predictive values ranging from 88% to 95%, accuracy for predicting failed trial of labor was low, ranging from 33% to 58%. Individual predictors including Hispanic ethnicity, African-American race, advanced maternal age, no previous vaginal birth history, birth weight heavier than 4 kg, and use of either augmentation or induction were all associated with reduced likelihood of VBAC. Current scored models provide reasonable predictability for VBAC, but none provides consistent ability to identify women at risk for failed trial of labor. A scoring model is needed that incorporates known antepartum factors and can be adjusted for current obstetric factors and labor patterns if induction or augmentation is needed. This would allow women and clinicians to better determine individuals most likely to require repeat cesarean delivery.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 10/2010; 116(4):967-81. · 4.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE, DARE, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses. We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 06/2010; 115(6):1267-78. · 4.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To synthesize the published literature on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Specifically, to review the trends and incidence of VBAC, maternal benefits and harms, infant benefits and harms, relevant factors influencing each, and the directions for future research. Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE; DARE; the Cochrane databases (1966 to September 2009); and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to determine study eligibility. The target population includes healthy women of reproductive age, with a singleton gestation, in the U.S. with a prior cesarean who are eligible for a trial of labor (TOL) or elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). All eligible studies were quality rated and data were extracted from good or fair quality studies, entered into tables, summarized descriptively and, when appropriate, pooled for analysis. The primary focus of the report was term pregnancies. However, due to a small number of studies on term pregnancies, general population studies including all gestational ages (GA) were included in appropriate areas. We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers for inclusion, of which 203 papers met inclusion and were quality rated. Studies of maternal and infant outcomes reported data based upon actual rather than intended router of delivery. The range for TOL and VBAC rates was large (28-82 percent and 49-87 percent, respectively) with the highest rates being reported in studies outside of the U.S. Predictors of women having a TOL were having a prior vaginal delivery and settings of higher-level care (e.g., tertiary care centers). TOL rates in U.S. studies declined in studies initiated after 1996 from 63 to 47 percent, but the VBAC rate remained unimproved. Hispanic and African American women were less likely than their white counterparts to have a vaginal delivery. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both TOL and ERCD. While rare for both TOL and ERCD, maternal mortality was significantly increased for ERCD at 13.4 per 100,000 versus 3.8 per 100,000 for TOL. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between TOL and ERCD. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean is 3 per 1,000 and the risk was significantly increased with TOL (4.7/1,000 versus 0.3/1,000 ERCD). Six percent of uterine ruptures were associated with perinatal death. No models have been able to accurately predict women who are more likely to deliver by VBAC or to rupture. Women with one prior cesarean delivery and previa had a statistically significant increased risk of adverse events compared with previa patients without a prior cesarean delivery; blood transfusion (15 versus 32.2 percent), hysterectomy (0.7 to 4 percent versus 10 percent), and composite maternal morbidity (15 versus 23-30 percent). Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD. Insufficient data were found on nonmedical factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital staffing, structure and setting, which all appear to be important drivers for VBAC. Each year 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans. Relatively unexamined contextual factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital structure, and staffing may need to be addressed to prioritize VBAC services. There is still no evidence to inform patients, clinicians, or policymakers about the outcomes of intended route of delivery because the evidence is based largely on the actual route of delivery. This inception cohort is the equivalent of intention to treat for randomized controlled trials and this gap in information is critical. A list of future research considerations as prioritized by national experts is also highlighted in this report.
    Evidence report/technology assessment 03/2010;