{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,17]],"date-time":"2026-08-17T14:43:21Z","timestamp":1786977801677,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,20]],"date-time":"2017-04-20T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1492646400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Intl J Gynecology & Obste"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,7]]},"abstract":"Abstract<\/jats:title>\n \n Objective<\/jats:title>\n \n To assess rates of, and factors associated with, trial of labor and vaginal delivery among pregnancies complicated by both gestational diabetes (\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n ) and a previous cesarean delivery.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Methods<\/jats:title>\n \n In a retrospective study of singleton deliveries at a university hospital in Israel between 2009 and 2015, women with one previous cesarean delivery and\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n were matched to those without\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n by past cesarean delivery indication: non\u2010favorable (non\u2010progressive labor or failed induction) or favorable (all other indications). Computerized files were reviewed, and maternal, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes were compared.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results<\/jats:title>\n \n In total, 109 women with\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n were matched to 109 control women. Trial of labor was attempted by 55 (50.5%) women in the control group and 11 (10.1%) in the\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n group (\n P<<\/jats:italic>\n 0.001). Overall, 42 (38.5%) control women and 5 (4.6%) women with\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n delivered vaginally (\n P<<\/jats:italic>\n 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression identified lack of\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n as the most significant factor associated with trial of vaginal delivery, followed by a prior vaginal delivery. Among women attempting a trial of labor, past vaginal delivery, but not\n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n status, was associated with successful vaginal delivery.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n \n GDM<\/jats:styled-content>\n significantly diminished the likelihood of a trial of vaginal delivery after cesarean delivery and its subsequent success.\n <\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1002\/ijgo.12164","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,3,31]],"date-time":"2017-03-31T13:00:12Z","timestamp":1490965212000},"page":"84-88","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Trial of labor after cesarean delivery for pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"138","author":[{"given":"Hadas","family":"Ganer Herman","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Edith Wolfson Medical Center Sackler Faculty of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Zviya","family":"Kogan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Edith Wolfson Medical Center Sackler Faculty of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jacob","family":"Bar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Edith Wolfson Medical Center Sackler Faculty of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michal","family":"Kovo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Edith Wolfson Medical Center Sackler Faculty of Medicine Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv Israel"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_7_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0148343"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1053\/j.semperi.2016.03.003"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.clp.2008.03.007"},{"issue":"6","key":"e_1_2_7_5_1","first-page":"CD005528","article-title":"Non\u2010clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section","author":"Khunpradit S","year":"2011","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3182704880"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/14767058.2016.1237498"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa040405"},{"issue":"12","key":"e_1_2_7_9_1","first-page":"CD004224","article-title":"Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth","author":"Dodd JM","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5888\/pcd11.130415"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/1471-0528.14236"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008192"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2006.05.005"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_7_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"406","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000433006.09219.f1","article-title":"137: Gestational diabetes mellitus","volume":"122","author":"Practice Bulletin No","year":"2013","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"e_1_2_7_15_1","first-page":"S94","volume":"39","author":"Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy","year":"2015","journal-title":"Diabetes Care"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3182822193"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa0803267"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0036-1582128"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.09.029"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2011.09.028"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e31818db36f"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2014.06.015"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2015.12.021"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2001.115176"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2003.09.068"},{"key":"e_1_2_7_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/jp.2014.196"}],"container-title":["International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1002%2Fijgo.12164","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/ijgo.12164","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,4]],"date-time":"2024-05-04T04:55:12Z","timestamp":1714798512000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/ijgo.12164"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,20]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,7]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1002\/ijgo.12164"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/ijgo.12164","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0020-7292","1879-3479"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0020-7292","type":"print"},{"value":"1879-3479","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,20]]}}}