Julie A Blake1,2, Madeleine Gardner1,2,3, Jake Najman2, James G Scott4,5,6. 1. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Rd, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia. 2. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia. 3. Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, Australia. 4. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, 300 Herston Rd, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia. james.scott@qimrberghofer.edu.au. 5. Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Wacol, QLD, Australia. james.scott@qimrberghofer.edu.au. 6. Metro North Mental Health, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia. james.scott@qimrberghofer.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have reported children born by caesarean section are more likely to have lower cognitive outcomes compared to those born by vaginal delivery. This paper reviews the literature examining caesarean birth and offspring cognitive outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search for observational studies or case-control studies that compared cognitive outcomes of people born by caesarean section with those born by vaginal delivery was conducted in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science) from inception until December 2019 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were assessed for quality and a narrative synthesis was undertaken considering the evidence for a causal relationship according to the Bradford Hill Criteria. RESULTS: A total of seven studies were identified. Of these, four found a significant association between elective and emergency caesarean birth and reduction in offspring cognitive performance as measured by school performance or validated cognitive testing. Three studies found no association. There was variability in the quality of the studies, assessment of the reason for caesarean section (emergency vs elective), measurement of outcomes and adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: The evidence of an association between CS birth and lower offspring cognitive functioning is inconsistent. Based on currently available data, there is no evidence that a causal association exists. To better examine this association, future studies should (a) distinguish elective and emergency caesareans, (b) adequately adjust for confounding variables and (c) have valid outcome measures of cognition.
PURPOSE: Studies have reported children born by caesarean section are more likely to have lower cognitive outcomes compared to those born by vaginal delivery. This paper reviews the literature examining caesarean birth and offspring cognitive outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search for observational studies or case-control studies that compared cognitive outcomes of people born by caesarean section with those born by vaginal delivery was conducted in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science) from inception until December 2019 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were assessed for quality and a narrative synthesis was undertaken considering the evidence for a causal relationship according to the Bradford Hill Criteria. RESULTS: A total of seven studies were identified. Of these, four found a significant association between elective and emergency caesarean birth and reduction in offspring cognitive performance as measured by school performance or validated cognitive testing. Three studies found no association. There was variability in the quality of the studies, assessment of the reason for caesarean section (emergency vs elective), measurement of outcomes and adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: The evidence of an association between CS birth and lower offspring cognitive functioning is inconsistent. Based on currently available data, there is no evidence that a causal association exists. To better examine this association, future studies should (a) distinguish elective and emergency caesareans, (b) adequately adjust for confounding variables and (c) have valid outcome measures of cognition.
Authors: Hedvig E Jakobsson; Thomas R Abrahamsson; Maria C Jenmalm; Keith Harris; Christopher Quince; Cecilia Jernberg; Bengt Björkstén; Lars Engstrand; Anders F Andersson Journal: Gut Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Catherine M Calvin; Ian J Deary; Candida Fenton; Beverly A Roberts; Geoff Der; Nicola Leckenby; G David Batty Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Fernando C Barros; Alicia Matijasevich; Pedro C Hallal; Bernardo L Horta; Aluísio J Barros; Ana B Menezes; Iná S Santos; Denise P Gigante; Cesar G Victora Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Viktor H Ahlqvist; Lucas D Ekström; Egill Jónsson-Bachmann; Per Tynelius; Paul Madley-Dowd; Martin Neovius; Cecilia Magnusson; Daniel Berglind Journal: Evid Based Ment Health Date: 2021-09-12