Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Association of caesarean delivery with offspring health outcomes in full-cohort versus sibling-comparison studies: a comparative meta-analysis and simulation study

BMC Medicine volume 21, Article number: 348 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Full-cohort and sibling-comparison designs have yielded inconsistent results about the impacts of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes, with the effect estimates from the latter being more likely directed towards the null value. We hypothesized that the seemingly conservative results obtained from the sibling-comparison design might be attributed to inadequate adjustment for non-shared confounders between siblings, particularly maternal age at delivery.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was first conducted. PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science were searched from database inception to April 6, 2022. Included studies (1) examined the association of caesarean delivery, whether elective or emergency, with offspring health outcomes; (2) simultaneously conducted full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses; and (3) reported adjusted effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). No language restrictions were applied. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. Three-level meta-analytic models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for caesarean versus vaginal delivery on multiple offspring health outcomes separately for full-cohort and sibling-comparison designs. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the method of adjustment for maternal age at delivery. A simulation study was then conducted. The simulated datasets were generated with some key parameters derived from the meta-analysis.

Results

Eighteen studies involving 21,854,828 individuals were included. The outcomes assessed included mental and behavioral disorders; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases; asthma; cardiorespiratory fitness; and multiple sclerosis. The overall pooled OR for estimates from the full-cohort design was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.17), higher than that for estimates from the sibling-comparison design (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.14). Stratified analyses showed that estimates from the sibling-comparison design varied considerably across studies using different methods to adjust for maternal age at delivery in multivariate analyses, while those from the full-cohort design were rather stable: in studies that did not adjust maternal age at delivery, the pooled OR of full-cohort vs. sibling-comparison design was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.22) vs. 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.31), in studies adjusting it as a categorical variable, 1.15 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.19) vs. 1.07 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.15), and in studies adjusting it as a continuous variable, 1.12 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.19) vs. 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.29). The severe underestimation bias related to the inadequate adjustment of maternal age at delivery in sibling-comparison analyses was fully replicated in the simulation study.

Conclusions

Sibling-comparison analyses may underestimate the association of caesarean delivery with multiple offspring health outcomes due to inadequate adjustment of non-shared confounders, such as maternal age at delivery. Thus, we should be cautious when interpreting the seemingly conservative results of sibling-comparison analyses in delivery-related studies.

Peer Review reports

Background

Caesarean delivery plays a crucial role in tackling medical conditions, such as abnormal placentation, dystocia, fetal distress, and previous caesarean delivery [1]. Over the past 5 decades, the global caesarean delivery rate has increased from 5% in 1970 to 21.1% in 2018 [2], exceeding the level of 15% endorsed by WHO [3]. The growing popularity of caesarean delivery has caused widespread concern about its potential negative impacts on maternal and offspring health [4]. Population-based cohort studies from different settings suggest an association of caesarean delivery with multiple health outcomes in offspring, such as obesity, asthma, type 1 diabetes, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [5,6,7,8,9], but whether these findings reveal causation has remained much debated primarily due to potential biases from uncontrollable confounders. More recently, studies have attempted to sidestep such confounding effects by using a sibling-comparison design, which could presumably adjust for unmeasured confounding factors shared by siblings (e.g., cultural background, parental characteristics, and child-rearing practices) and thus may generate more reliable results in some contexts [10, 11]. In most studies that simultaneously used these two designs, the sibling-comparison analyses did generate less significant results with respect to the impacts of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes, enhancing the speculation that the associations observed in full-cohort analyses were likely due to uncontrolled or residual confounding [12,13,14,15,16]. However, whether sibling-comparison analyses are more reliable than full-cohort analyses in this specific context remains largely unknown.

Mathematically, effect estimates from studies with sibling-comparison versus unpaired full-cohort design may be more biased due to the confounding of non-shared factors among siblings [17]. Maternal age at delivery may be an important non-shared confounder in delivery-related studies using a sibling-comparison design. Specifically, in these studies, only sibling pairs that differ in delivery mode will be informative on the estimated associations. Given that caesarean delivery after a previous vaginal birth is more frequent than vaginal birth after a previous caesarean (VBAC) [18,19,20], the artificial selection of siblings with different delivery modes would lead to a systematic upwards bias in the maternal age for caesarean-born compared to vaginally-born siblings, as compared with a full-cohort design. In the meanwhile, higher maternal age might be associated with lower risks of adverse health outcomes of offspring, as older mothers generally have higher socioeconomic status and better parenting experience [21]. This indicates that maternal age at delivery, as a confounding factor, may counteractively reduce the negative impacts of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes. Therefore, we raised the hypothesis that sibling-comparison studies, compared with full-cohort studies, would be more likely to underestimate the true association of caesarean delivery with offspring health outcomes due to inadequate adjustment for maternal age at delivery.

In this study, we first performed a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis for studies using both full-cohort and sibling-comparison designs to investigate the association between all caesarean delivery, including both elective and emergency caesarean delivery, and offspring health outcomes, with a particular focus on the impacts of different handling methods of adjustment for maternal age at delivery in multivariate regression models. We then conducted a simulation study to explore whether the results of the meta-analysis could be replicated mathematically.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [22].

Search strategy and eligibility

We initially searched PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science on November 4, 2020, and updated the search on April 6, 2022. We combined terms related to “caesarean delivery”, “cohort study”, and “siblings comparison design” without restrictions on language and health outcomes. Full details of the search strategy are provided in Additional file 1. We also checked the reference lists of relevant reviews for additional studies. After importing studies searched from databases into Endnote and excluding duplicate records, two authors (HY and XW or ZG) browsed titles and abstracts to initially determine potential eligible studies and then scanned full text to assess for final inclusion. Studies were included if they met all criteria: (1) they were historical or prospective cohort studies that simultaneously conducted full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses; (2) they examined the association of caesarean delivery compared with vaginal delivery with offspring health outcomes; and (3) they reported relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All searches and screening were independently conducted by two authors (HY and XW or ZG), and a third author resolved disagreements by discussion and adjudication.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two authors (HY and XW or ZG) independently extracted the following information from each study using a predetermined form: (1) first author and year of publication; (2) characteristics of the study, including study design, study location, study period, characteristics of the participants, sample size, groups of exposure, and outcome measures; and (3) effect estimates from both full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses, including the number of participants, calculated effect size (e.g., OR, RR or HR [95% CI]), and details of adjustment for confounders. Whenever possible, we extracted the effect estimates that were most fully adjusted in the studies; if adjusted estimates were not available, unadjusted ones were extracted. If a study classified caesarean delivery into elective caesarean delivery and emergency caesarean delivery, we extracted all information on effect estimates. When needed, we contacted the original author for clarification.

Two reviewers (XW and ZG or HY) independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, which was developed to assess the risk of bias in observational studies including cohort studies [23]. Study group selection (4 stars), comparability between groups (2 stars), and outcome measure (3 stars) are considered in the scale for cohort study, with the maximum being 9 stars. We defined ≥ 7 stars as high quality, 4–6 as medium quality, and ≤ 3 as low quality. Two reviewers (XW and ZG or HY) independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third investigator.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

The primary analysis was to estimate the overall pooled ORs with the 95% CIs for caesarean delivery versus vaginal delivery on offspring health outcomes derived from full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses separately. All adjusted effect sizes, including those for either elective or emergency caesarean delivery, were taken into account, implying that multiple effect sizes from the same studies may be included. Therefore, three-level meta-analytic models were used to pool the estimates to account for the dependence within studies, and the restricted maximum likelihood estimations were used to obtain the parameters [24]. Moreover, a comparative analysis was carried out to evaluate the justification for using three-level models, as opposed to ordinary two-level models.

Since adverse offspring health outcomes were rare [25, 26], we regarded HR and RR as approximate ORs [27]. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and Q statistic, and the sources of heterogeneity were explored by conducting subgroup analyses according to the type of caesarean delivery (elective caesarean delivery or emergency caesarean delivery), type of outcomes, method of adjustment for maternal age at delivery (without adjustment, adjusting as a categorical variable, or adjusting as a continuous variable). In the subgroup analysis concerning the type of caesarean delivery, two-level random-effects models based on the generic invariance method were used to pool the results as only one effect size in each study was included. To assess the robustness of the results, sensitivity analyses were made by serially excluding each study. Funnel plots and Begg’s rank correlation test were used to assess potential publication bias [28].

In the simulation study, we created a hypothetical cohort of over a million mother–child pairs with varying maternal ages at delivery based on the results of the meta-analysis (e.g., the overall pooled ORs of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes) and those from the literature (e.g., the prevalence of caesarean delivery). In this simulated cohort, approximately 20% of the children were siblings, while the remaining ones were independent observations. With the assumption that increasing maternal age at delivery is associated with a higher chance of caesarean delivery as well as a lower risk of adverse health outcomes of offspring [21, 29], the mode of delivery and the health outcome of each child were simulated. We performed both full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses and compared the estimated effects at different levels of sibling similarity (i.e., correlation of maternal age at delivery among siblings) and for different methods of adjustment for maternal age at delivery (i.e., without adjustment, adjusting by 10-year age categories, adjusting by 5-year age categories, or adjusting as a continuous variable). Each scenario was simulated 100 times, after which the median and interquartile range over the 100 estimates were calculated. The simulations only focused on maternal age at delivery as the confounding factor, without considering any other potential confounders. Full details of the simulation study are provided in Additional file 2 [2, 21, 29,30,31].

Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.2), and statistical tests were two-sided with a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Study characteristics

After scanning the titles, abstracts, or full texts, 18 studies involving 21,854,828 individuals were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1) [8, 12,13,14,15,16, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Of these studies, 5 defined modes of delivery as either vaginal delivery or caesarean delivery, 5 categorized into unassisted vaginal delivery (reference group), assisted vaginal delivery (instrumental vaginal delivery), emergency caesarean delivery (intrapartum caesarean delivery), and elective caesarean delivery (prelabor caesarean delivery), 5 divided into vaginal delivery, elective caesarean delivery, and emergency caesarean delivery, and the remaining 3 studies divided into unassisted vaginal delivery, assisted vaginal delivery, and caesarean delivery. Two of the included studies presented two outcomes [15, 38], so a total of 31 estimates were involved in the primary analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram for study identification and selection

Full size image

The included studies separately assessed the associations between caesarean delivery and 10 types of health outcomes. According to the International Classification of Diseases version 10, 9 studies focused on mental and behavioral disorders; 5 studies evaluated endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases; 2 studies concerned asthma; and the remaining 2 focused on multiple sclerosis and cardiorespiratory fitness, respectively. In terms of the effect estimates, 9 studies reported HRs of both full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses [8, 12, 14, 34,35,36,37, 41, 42], 4 reported ORs [15, 31, 33, 38], 3 reported RRs [32, 39, 40], and the remaining 2 reported inconsistent types of effect size among full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses [13, 16]. Regarding the adjustment for maternal age at delivery, 5 studies adjusted for it as a continuous variable [16, 31, 32, 36, 37], 11 adjusted for it as a categorical variable [8, 12, 14, 15, 33,34,35, 38, 40,41,42], and 2 studies did not adjust for it [13, 39]. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Quality assessment

Seventeen of the included studies were assessed to be high quality, and only one study was deemed to be medium quality [40]. Among 17 high-quality studies, 8 received 9 stars [8, 12, 15, 33,34,35, 38, 41], 7 received 8 stars [13, 14, 31, 36, 37, 39, 42], and 2 scored 7 stars [16, 32]. The detailed Newcastle–Ottawa scores of the included studies are shown in Additional file 3: Table S1.

Associations between caesarean delivery and offspring health outcomes

The three-level meta-analytic models revealed that caesarean delivery compared to vaginal delivery was significantly associated with increased risk of adverse offspring health outcomes. The pooling of effect estimates based on full-cohort analyses generated a summary OR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.17), with 62.0% of the total variation attributed to between-study heterogeneity (level-3 I2 = 62.0%; Q(df) = 113.0(30); P < 0.01) (Fig. 2). Meanwhile, the pooled OR was significantly lower for estimates based on sibling-comparison analyses (P < 0.01), with a value of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.14) and 57.6% of the total variation attributed to between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 57.6%; Q(df) = 72.3(30); P < 0.01) (Fig. 2). The comparison between the three-level models and the two-level models showed that the former provided better fits (Additional file 3: Table S2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Caesarean delivery compared with vaginal delivery on offspring health outcomes

Full size image

Subgroup analyses

Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary analysis, with the pooled effect estimates of full-cohort analyses being relatively higher than those of sibling-comparison analyses (Table 2). When stratifying according to the type of caesarean delivery, the pooled ORs of elective caesarean delivery based on full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses were 1.14 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.16) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.06), and those of emergency caesarean delivery were 1.10 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.14) and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.10), respectively.

Table 2 Subgroup meta-analyses
Full size table

When stratifying by the type of outcomes, the pooled ORs based on full-cohort versus sibling-comparison analyses for mental and behavioral disorders, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and low cardiorespiratory fitness were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.18) vs. 1.05 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.10), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.29) vs. 1.06 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.22), 1.17 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.52) vs. 1.03 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.71), and 1.08 (0.96 to 1.21) vs. 0.93 (95% CI: 0.77 to 1.12), respectively. Nevertheless, in the subgroup of endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, the pooled OR based on sibling-comparison analyses (1.27, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.41) tended to be slightly higher than that based on full-cohort analyses (1.16, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.23).

The discrepancies in the results between full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses, as anticipated, appeared to vary with methods of adjustment for maternal age at delivery. Regarding the estimates that did not adjust for maternal age at delivery, the pooled OR based on full-cohort analyses was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.22), while that based on sibling-comparison analyses was 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.31). In the estimates that adjusted for maternal age at delivery as a categorical variable, the pooled ORs of full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses were 1.15 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.19) and 1.07 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.15), respectively. Notably, among the remaining estimates that adjusted for maternal age at delivery as a continuous variable, the pooled ORs based on full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses were 1.12 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.19) and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.29), respectively.

Sensitivity analyses and assessment of publication bias

In the primary leave-1-out analyses, omitting any study did not significantly change the estimated effect size (Additional file 3: Table S3). The funnel plots suggested an absence of publication bias, whether based on full-cohort or sibling-comparison analyses (Additional file 4: Figure S1), and the Begg’s rank correlation test also did not indicate significant publication bias of the included studies (Additional file 3: Table S4).

Simulations

We simulated scenarios where insufficient adjustment for maternal age at delivery may lead to discrepancies between the results of full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses. The distributions of the estimates derived from the two designs are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distributions of estimates in the simulation study. The black dashed line indicates the “true effect” of caesarean delivery on offspring health that we set according to the results of our meta-analysis. “Cor” represents the correlation of maternal age at delivery between siblings

Full size image

When siblings were less similar regarding maternal age at delivery (i.e., the correlation of maternal age at delivery between siblings was equal to 0.3), the difference between the estimates from the two designs increased as the adjustment became more insufficient. Specifically, when we adjusted maternal age at delivery as a continuous variable, the results from both designs were approximately equal to the true effect, while the estimates derived from full-cohort analyses were more concentrated. When we adjusted for maternal age at delivery as a categorical variable, the estimates from full-cohort analyses were still relatively close to the actual effect, while those from sibling-comparison analyses were far from the true value. As the similarity of maternal age at delivery increased, the difference between the results of the two designs decreased. For example, when we did not adjust for maternal age at delivery, the difference in the median of the estimates from the two designs changed from 0.25 to 0.05 as the correlation of maternal age at delivery between siblings changed from 0.3 to 0.9. In addition, we also found that regardless of whether conditional logistic regression or the between-within model was used in sibling-comparison analyses, the results of the simulation study were robust (Additional file 2).

Discussion

Principal findings

To our knowledge, this study is the first to synthesize and comprehensively investigate the associations of caesarean delivery with offspring health outcomes generated by full-cohort and sibling-comparison analyses. Given the high rate and potential adverse impacts of caesarean delivery, clarification of the seemingly contradictory evidence from these two types of analyses is of clinical and public health significance. As anticipated, the pooled OR of caesarean delivery with offspring health outcomes derived from sibling-comparison analyses was more conservative than that derived from full-cohort analyses. This phenomenon was more pronounced in the subgroup of studies that did not adjust for maternal age at delivery or adjusted for it as a categorical covariate.

Previous research has pointed out mathematically that the estimates from sibling-comparison design may be more biased when siblings are less similar regarding non-shared confounders [17]. In this study, we considered maternal age at delivery to be a main non-shared confounder for the following reasons. First, a vaginal delivery after previous caesarean is less frequent than a caesarean delivery after previous vaginal birth [18,19,20], so in sibling-comparison studies, children delivered by caesarean delivery were more likely to be born to older mothers. Therefore, the difference in maternal age at delivery between the two delivery modes in sibling-comparison studies is inherently larger than that in full-cohort studies. Meanwhile, maternal age at delivery is closely related to the health and well-being of offspring [43], since it relates to biological, social, economic, and behavioral factors that may affect a child’s development [44,45,46]. Older mothers generally have higher socioeconomic status and better parenting experience [47]. Thus, increasing maternal age might be associated with a lower risk of adverse health outcomes of offspring, which may in turn reduce the negative impacts of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes [48]. In addition, similar to many other continuous covariates, maternal age at delivery was often adjusted categorically in multivariate regression models. Adjustment for continuous confounders as categorical variables may inevitably result in residual confounding [49], and given the design nature, a sibling-comparison design compared to a full-cohort design would be particularly susceptible to such confounding [17]. Therefore, the effect estimates generated by sibling-comparison studies may be more likely to underestimate the underlying relationship between caesarean delivery and offspring health outcomes.

The simulation study further supported our hypothesis as well as findings from the meta-analysis. Simulated results demonstrated that the estimates from the full-cohort analyses were more concentrated, more accurate, and less affected by the inadequate adjustment of maternal age at delivery. In contrast, the estimates from the sibling-comparison analyses were dispersed and more susceptible to the influence of residual confounding. Notably, consistent with the findings in the meta-analysis, when we insufficiently adjusted for maternal age at delivery, the estimates of full-cohort analyses were always closer to the true value we set. Although fully adjusting confounders is far more complex than we simulated, we believe that the results of ordinary cohort studies with large sample sizes would be more accurate and robust than those of sibling-comparison studies, especially when the adjustment for non-shared confounders such as maternal age at delivery is inadequate.

Interestingly, we noticed that the effect of caesarean delivery on endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, especially obesity or overweight, appeared to be overestimated, but not underestimated, in sibling-comparison analyses. A previous study found that when maternal age was greater than 30 years, it was associated with a higher risk of offspring being overweight or obese [50]. This may be due to the high prevalence of obesity among older women [51, 52], which may in turn negatively impact the development of the offspring’s metabolic system and ultimately result in metabolic diseases in offspring [53, 54]. Therefore, contrary to previous scenarios, older maternal age at delivery was positively associated with the outcome at this time, so sibling-comparison analyses compared to full-cohort analyses would be more likely to overestimate the effect size when the adjustment for maternal age at delivery was inadequate.

Limitations of the study

This study has several limitations. First, multiple types of health outcomes, with potentially high heterogeneity, were included in the analyses. Although the subgroup analysis concerning different types of health outcomes was performed, the number of studies in some subgroups was limited. However, this meta-analysis did not focus on the effects of caesarean delivery on offspring health outcomes but rather on comparing the estimates of the effects from different designs. Second, the effect estimates of the included studies were inconsistent, including ORs, RRs, and HRs. We regarded both HRs and RRs as ORs to obtain a relatively conservative estimate. Third, due to the limited number of studies available, only maternal age at delivery was used as a proxy for similar inverse confounders. Future studies should investigate additional confounders to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the associations. Fourth, the models we used in the simulation study may not perfectly reflect real-world scenarios. For instance, maternal age at delivery was considered as the only confounder, and the association of maternal age at delivery with offspring health outcomes was simply assumed to be linear. However, since the aim of the simulation study is to illustrate how inverse confounders such as maternal age at delivery may lead to the underestimation of sibling-comparison analyses, the discrepancy between the models and reality may not affect the results. Fifth, most included studies used data from Swedish or Danish national registers and might fail to be well-represented worldwide. Reassuringly, the results of these studies were proven to be consistent with those from other settings [55,56,57].

Conclusions

The results of our meta-analysis and simulation study indicated that sibling-comparison analyses may underestimate the association of caesarean delivery with multiple offspring health outcomes due to inadequate adjustment of non-shared confounders such as maternal age at delivery. In contrast, full-cohort analyses provide more reliable estimates of this association. Therefore, it is advisable to future delivery-related studies to give priority to the large-sample cohort design. If using the sibling-comparison design, it is essential to carefully consider the impact of non-shared confounders and be cautious about the interpretation of the results.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data for the systematic review and meta-analysis is included in Table 1 and Fig. 2, and the details of the model used for the simulation study are included in Additional file 2.

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

AIC:

Akaike information criterion

ASD:

Autism spectrum disorder

ASR:

Acute stress response

BIC:

Bayesian information criterion

BMI:

Body mass index

CI:

Confidence interval

CPAP:

Continuous positive airway pressure

HR:

Hazard ratio

OCD:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

OR:

Odds ratio

PCS:

Prospective cohort study

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PTSD:

Posttraumatic stress disorder

RR:

Relative risk

SLE:

Systemic lupus erythematosus

VBAC:

Vaginal birth after a previous caesarean

References

  1. Sung S, Mahdy H. Cesarean section. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Modified reference: World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436–7.

  4. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, Gibbons D, Kelly NM, Kennedy HP, Kidanto H, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chavarro JE, Martín-Calvo N, Yuan C, Arvizu M, Rich-Edwards JW, Michels KB, Sun Q. Association of birth by cesarean delivery with obesity and type 2 diabetes among adult women. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e202605.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tollånes MC, Moster D, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):112–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clausen TD, Bergholt T, Eriksson F, Rasmussen S, Keiding N, Løkkegaard EC. Prelabor cesarean section and risk of childhood type 1 diabetes: a nationwide register-based cohort study. Epidemiology. 2016;27(4):547–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Axelsson PB, Clausen TD, Petersen AH, Hageman I, Pinborg A, Kessing LV, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Keiding N, Løkkegaard ECL. Investigating the effects of cesarean delivery and antibiotic use in early childhood on risk of later attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60(2):151–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tefera M, Assefa N, Mengistie B, Abrham A, Teji K, Worku T. Elective Cesarean section on term pregnancies has a high risk for neonatal respiratory morbidity in developed countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:286.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Petersen AH, Lange T. What is the causal interpretation of sibling comparison designs? Epidemiology. 2020;31(1):75–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Donovan SJ, Susser E. Commentary: advent of sibling designs. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(2):345–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Curran EA, Khashan AS, Dalman C, Kenny LC, Cryan JF, Dinan TG, Kearney PM. Obstetric mode of delivery and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a sibling-matched study. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(2):532–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nielsen NM, Bager P, Stenager E, Pedersen BV, Koch-Henriksen N, Hjalgrim H, Frisch M. Cesarean section and offspring’s risk of multiple sclerosis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. Mult Scler. 2013;19(11):1473–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Curran EA, Dalman C, Kearney PM, Kenny LC, Cryan JF, Dinan TG, Khashan AS. Association between obstetric mode of delivery and autism spectrum disorder: a population-based sibling design study. JAMA Psychiat. 2015;72(9):935–42.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bråbäck L, Ekéus C, Lowe AJ, Hjern A. Confounding with familial determinants affects the association between mode of delivery and childhood asthma medication - a national cohort study. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013;9(1):14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yuan C, Gaskins AJ, Blaine AI, Zhang C, Gillman MW, Missmer SA, Field AE, Chavarro JE. Association between cesarean birth and risk of obesity in offspring in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(11):e162385.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Frisell T, Öberg S, Kuja-Halkola R, Sjölander A. Sibling comparison designs: bias from non-shared confounders and measurement error. Epidemiology. 2012;23(5):713–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Osterman MJK. Recent trends in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: United States, 2016–2018. NCHS Data Brief. 2020;359:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chen X, Gao J, Liu J, Hu J, Li S, Tang Y, Zhong M, He J, Liao S, Yang J, et al. Previous mode of delivery affects subsequent pregnancy outcomes: a Chinese birth register study. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(14):1135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, Huang CC, Driggers RW, Laughon SK. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):33–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Barclay K, Myrskylä M. Advanced maternal age and offspring outcomes: Reproductive aging and counterbalancing period trends. Popul Dev Rev. 2016;42(1):69–94.

  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.  Accessed 1 Oct 2021.

  24. Van den Noortgate W, Lopez-Lopez JA, Marin-Martinez F, Sanchez-Meca J. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45(2):576–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baumfeld Y, Walfisch A, Wainstock T, Segal I, Sergienko R, Landau D, Sheiner E. Elective cesarean delivery at term and the long-term risk for respiratory morbidity of the offspring. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(11):1653–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mamun AA, Sutharsan R, O’Callaghan M, Williams G, Najman J, McIntyre HD, Callaway L. Cesarean delivery and the long-term risk of offspring obesity. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1176–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. VanderWeele TJ. Optimal approximate conversions of odds ratios and hazard ratios to risk ratios. Biometrics. 2020;76(3):746–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Callaway LK, Lust K, McIntyre HD. Pregnancy outcomes in women of very advanced maternal age. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(1):12–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schummers L, Hutcheon JA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Williams PL, Hacker MR, VanderWeele TJ, Norman WV. Association of short interpregnancy interval with pregnancy outcomes according to maternal age. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1661–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ekstrom LD, Ahlqvist VH, Persson M, Magnusson C, Berglind D. The association between birth by cesarean section and adolescent cardiorespiratory fitness in a cohort of 339,451 Swedish males. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18661.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ahlqvist VH, Persson M, Magnusson C, Berglind D. Elective and nonelective cesarean section and obesity among young adult male offspring: A Swedish population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2019;16(12):e1002996.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Almqvist C, Cnattingius S, Lichtenstein P, Lundholm C. The impact of birth mode of delivery on childhood asthma and allergic diseases-a sibling study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2012;42(9):1369–76.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Axelsson PB, Clausen TD, Petersen AH, Hageman I, Pinborg A, Kessing LV, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Keiding N, Løkkegaard ECL. Relation between infant microbiota and autism?: Results from a national cohort sibling design study. Epidemiology. 2019;30(1):52–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Axelsson PB, Petersen AH, Hageman I, Pinborg AB, Kessing LV, Bergholt T, Rasmussen SC, Keiding N, Clausen TD, Lokkegaard ECL. Is cesarean section a cause of affective disorders?-A national cohort study using sibling designs. J Affect Disord. 2020;265:496–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brander G, Rydell M, Kuja-Halkola R, Fernandez de la Cruz L, Lichtenstein P, Serlachius E, Ruck C, Almqvist C, D’Onofrio BM, Larsson H, et al. Perinatal risk factors in Tourette’s and chronic tic disorders: a total population sibling comparison study. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;23(5):1189–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brander G, Rydell M, Kuja-Halkola R, Fernández de la Cruz LF, Lichtenstein P, Serlachius E, Rk C, Almqvist C, D’Onofrio BM, Larsson H, et al. Association of perinatal risk factors with obsessive-compulsive disorder a population-based birth cohort, sibling control study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73(11):1135–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hawkins SS, Baum CF, Rifas-Shiman SL, Oken E, Taveras EM. Examining associations between perinatal and postnatal risk factors for childhood obesity using sibling comparisons. Child Obes. 2019;15(4):254–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Khashan AS, Kenny LC, Lundholm C, Kearney PM, Gong T, Almqvist C. Mode of obstetrical delivery and type 1 diabetes: a sibling design study. Pediatrics. 2014;134(3):e806-813.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Martin-Calvo N, Angel Martinez-Gonzalez M, Segura G, Chavarro JE, Carlos S, Gea A. Caesarean delivery is associated with higher risk of overweight in the offspring: within-family analysis in the SUN cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74(7):586–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang T, Brander G, Mantel Ä, Kuja-Halkola R, Stephansson O, Chang Z, Larsson H, Mataix-Cols D, Fernández de la Cruz L. Assessment of cesarean delivery and neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the children of a population-based Swedish birth cohort. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e210837.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Li Y, Sjölander A, Song H, Cnattingius S, Fang F, Yang Q, Fernández de la Cruz L, Mataix-Cols D, Brander G, Li J, et al. Associations of parental and perinatal factors with subsequent risk of stress-related disorders: a nationwide cohort study with sibling comparison. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:1712–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Henderson M, Richards M, Stansfeld S, Hotopf M. The association between childhood cognitive ability and adult long-term sickness absence in three British birth cohorts: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):e000777.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Carolan M. The graying of the obstetric population: implications for the older mother. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2003;32(1):19–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tearne JE. Older maternal age and child behavioral and cognitive outcomes: a review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1381–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cooke CM, Davidge ST. Advanced maternal age and the impact on maternal and offspring cardiovascular health. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2019;317(2):H387-h394.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bray I, Gunnell D, Davey Smith G. Advanced paternal age: how old is too old? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):851–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Falster K, Hanly M, Banks E, Lynch J, Chambers G, Brownell M, Eades S, Jorm L. Maternal age and offspring developmental vulnerability at age five: a population-based cohort study of Australian children. PLoS Med. 2018;15(4):e1002558.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Groenwold RH, Klungel OH, Altman DG, van der Graaf Y, Hoes AW, Moons KG. Adjustment for continuous confounders: an example of how to prevent residual confounding. CMAJ. 2013;185(5):401–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Myrskylä M, Fenelon A. Maternal age and offspring adult health: evidence from the health and retirement study. Demography. 2012;49(4):1231–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu B, Xu G, Sun Y, Du Y, Gao R, Snetselaar LG, Santillan MK, Bao W. Association between maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and preterm birth according to maternal age and race or ethnicity: a population-based study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(9):707–14.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Pasco JA, Nicholson GC, Brennan SL, Kotowicz MA. Prevalence of obesity and the relationship between the body mass index and body fat: cross-sectional, population-based data. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29580.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Razaz N, Villamor E, Muraca GM, Bonamy AE, Cnattingius S. Maternal obesity and risk of cardiovascular diseases in offspring: a population-based cohort and sibling-controlled study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(7):572–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Catalano PM, Shankar K. Obesity and pregnancy: mechanisms of short term and long term adverse consequences for mother and child. BMJ. 2017;356: j1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Black M, Bhattacharya S, Philip S, Norman JE, McLernon DJ. Planned cesarean delivery at term and adverse outcomes in childhood health. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2271–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang T, Sidorchuk A, Sevilla-Cermeño L, Vilaplana-Pérez A, Chang Z, Larsson H, Mataix-Cols D, Fernández de la Cruz L. Association of cesarean delivery with risk of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e1910236.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Aris IM, Rifas-Shiman SL, Mínguez-Alarcón L, Sordillo JE, Hivert MF, Oken E, Chavarro JE. Association of mode of delivery with offspring pubertal development in Project Viva: a prospective pre-birth cohort study in the USA. Hum Reprod. 2021;37(1):54–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was in part funded by the Clinical Medicine Plus X-Young Scholars Project of Peking University (grant no: PKU2022LCXQ034) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hong-zhao Yu and Xiao-wei Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Reproductive and Child Health, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Reproductive Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China

    Hong-zhao Yu, Xiao-wei Wang, Zhen-yu Guo, Zhi Lin, Yu-bo Zhou, Hong-tian Li & Jian-meng Liu

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China

    Hong-zhao Yu, Xiao-wei Wang, Zhen-yu Guo, Zhi Lin, Yu-bo Zhou, Hong-tian Li & Jian-meng Liu

  3. Center for Intelligent Public Health, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Hong-tian Li & Jian-meng Liu

Authors
  1. Hong-zhao Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao-wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhen-yu Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu-bo Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hong-tian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jian-meng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HL, YZ, and JL conceived and designed the study and provided overall guidance. HY, XW, and ZG conducted the literature search, meta-analysis, and simulation study. HY, XW, ZG, and ZL prepared the first draft. All authors reviewed the manuscript, and HL, YZ, and JL critically revised the manuscript. HY and XW contributed equally to the manuscript. HL and YZ had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yu-bo Zhou or Hong-tian Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search Strategy.

Additional file 2.

Details of Simulation Study.

Additional file 3: Table S1.

Results of Quality Assessment. Table S2. Comparison Between Three-level Models and Two-level Models. Table S3. Results of Sensitivity Analyses. Table S4. Results of Begg’s Test.

Additional file 4: Figure S1.

Funnel Plots.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Hz., Wang, Xw., Guo, Zy. et al. Association of caesarean delivery with offspring health outcomes in full-cohort versus sibling-comparison studies: a comparative meta-analysis and simulation study. BMC Med 21, 348 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03030-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03030-2

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us