Uterine rupture is a serious public health concern that causes high maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in the developing world. Few of the studies conducted in Ethiopia show a high discrepancy in the prevalence of uterine rupture, which ranges between 1.6 and 16.7%. There also lacks a national study on this issue in Ethiopia. This systematic and meta-analysis, therefore, was conducted to assess the prevalence and determinants of uterine rupture in Ethiopia. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic review and meta-analysis of studies. All observational published studies were retrieved using relevant search terms in Google scholar, African Journals Online, CINHAL, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed (Medline) databases. Newcastle–Ottawa assessment checklist for observational studies was used for critical appraisal of the included articles. The meta-analysis was done with STATA version 14 software. The I2 test statistics were used to assess heterogeneity among included studies, and publication bias was assessed using Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented using forest plots. A total of twelve studies were included in this study. The pooled prevalence of uterine rupture was 3.98% (95% CI 3.02, 4.95). The highest (7.82%) and lowest (1.53%) prevalence were identified in Amhara and Southern Nations, Nationality and Peoples Region (SNNPR), respectively. Determinants of uterine rupture were urban residence (OR = 0.15 (95% CI 0.09, 0.23)), primipara (OR = 0.12 (95% CI 0.06, 0.27)), previous cesarean section (OR = 3.23 (95% CI 2.12, 4.92)), obstructed labor(OR = 12.21 (95% CI 6.01, 24.82)), and partograph utilization (OR = 0.12 (95% CI 0.09, 0.17)). Almost one in twenty-five mothers had uterine rupture in Ethiopia. Urban residence, primiparity, previous cesarean section, obstructed labor and partograph utilization were significantly associated with uterine rupture. Therefore, intervention programs should address the identified factors to reduce the prevalence of uterine rupture.
We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational published studies to assess the pooled prevalence and determinants of uterine rupture in Ethiopia. Retrieving of the included studies was done in different databases such as Google scholar, African Journals Online, CINHAL, HINARI, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed (Medline) without restricting the study period. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline was strictly followed during systematic review and meta-analysis31. A combination of search terms that best describe the study variables were used to retrieve articles. These include risk factors, determinants, predictors, factors, magnitude, prevalence, incidence, uterine rupture, laparotomy, hysterectomy, and Ethiopia. The terms were combined using “OR’ and “AND” Boolean operators. Additionally, reference list of the already identified articles were checked to find additional eligible articles but were missed during the initial searching. Study design All observational studies were included. Study period Studies conducted until August 2018 were included. Participants Women who had given birth at least once before data collection period of the included studies. Language Only articles written in English language were included. Publication status All studies regardless of publication status were considered. Studies which we couldn’t access texts after three emails to the cross ponding authors were excluded. Prevalence uterine rupture was the main outcome of this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of uterine rupture was determined considering studies in which the status of uterus after delivery was reported. Additionally, determinants of uterine rupture among mothers were the outcome of this study. Data for this study were extracted from the included articles using data extraction checklist. Data extraction was made using Microsoft Excel sheet. Two of the authors (AAA and LBZ) participated in extracting data from the included studies. The data extraction checklist contains variables like author name, publication year, study design, sample size, and exposure characteristics that included the prevalence, partograph utilization, augmentation, residence, obstructed labor, previous Caesarean section (C/S) and antenatal care visit (ANC). An intensive assessment of all articles included in this study was done by the two authors (AAA, MSB, KAG and LBZ). Newcastle–Ottawa assessment checklist32 for observational studies was used to assess the quality of each study included in this research. The tool has three sections. The first section was on methodological assessment and rated out of five stars, and the second section was on comparability evaluation and was rated out of three stars. The third section of the quality assessment tool was on assessing statistical analysis and outcome for each included study. There was a joint discussion between the authors for uncertainty, and the mean quality score was used to decide the quality of the included studies in the meta-analysis. Finally, studies scored ≥ 6 were grouped as having high quality. Important data extracted from each primary (original) study through Microsoft Excel were exported to STATA version 14 software for analysis. Then, standard for each included studies was computed using Binomial distribution formula. To determine the pooled estimate metan STATA command was computed considering random-effect model. Forest plots with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to present the findings of the study. The weight of each study is described by the size of each box, whereas the crossed line shows the CI at 95%. Publication bias was also assessed using Egger’s and Begg’s tests, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was used to declare its statistical significance33,34. Due to the presence of heterogeneity among33, subgroup analysis was computed considering the geographical region in which the studies were conducted.
N/A