4.7 Article

Birth by Caesarean section and otitis media in childhood: a retrospective cohort study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62229-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Nova Scotia/Canadian Institutes of Health Research Regional Partnership Program Operating Grant (FRN) [134531]
  2. Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation
  3. IWK Health Centre Foundation
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Atlee Endowment Fund
  5. Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre
  6. Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship from the Government of Nova Scotia
  7. Nova Scotia Research and Innovation Graduate Scholarship from the Government of Nova Scotia
  8. Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the present study was to examine the association between birth by Caesarean section (CS) and otitis media (OM) in childhood. We assembled a retrospective cohort of children born between 2003 and 2007 in Nova Scotia and followed them through to 2014. The cohort was derived through a linkage of the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database with provincial administrative health data. Cox proportional hazards, negative binomial regression and logistic regression were used to examine the association between CS and OM. Among the 36,318 children, 27% were born by CS, and 78% had at least one OM episode (median 2 episodes). Children born by CS were at a slightly higher risk of OM (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03, 1.09), had more OM episodes in the first 7 years of life (incidence rate ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.01, 1.07), and were more likely to be above the 95th percentile for OM episodes than children born vaginally (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.99, 1.23). Our study shows that birth by CS is weakly associated with OM in childhood, but the clinical and public health impact of these findings is small.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available